FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

Application no. 68493/01 
by Igor Vadimovich PATRIKEYEV 
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on  
21 March 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza, President
 Mr J. Casadevall
 Mr G. Bonello
 Mr R. Maruste
 Mr A. Kovler
 Mr S. Pavlovschi, 
 Mr L. Garlicki, judges,

and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 July 2000,

Having regard to the partial decision of 21 September 2004,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Igor Vadimovich Patrikeyev, is a Russian national, who was born in 1967 and lives in the town Nakhodka, the Primorskiy Region. The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1.  Criminal proceedings against the applicant.

On 21 April 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery.

Between 24 April 1998 and 6 June 2001 he was detained in remand prison IZ 47/1 of Magadan.

According to the applicant, in the cell of 15 square meters there were usually 15-21 inmates. There were eight beds in the cell and the inmates had to take two or three turns in sharing the bed. As he had to spend most of the time in the cell standing, his illness – varicose veins – worsened significantly. Because the lights were always on in the cell his sight deteriorated from - 1 to - 8. While in detention he lost 12 kilos because of malnutrition. Due to lack of vitamins his gums became swollen. During winters the outside temperature reached - 50 º Celsius, and in the absence of adequate heating inside he, as well as other inmates, always had a cold. There was no ventilation in the cell, and sometimes it was shared with inmates who suffered from tuberculosis, which caused outbreaks of this disease.

According to the Government, sanitary conditions of the cells the applicant was held in were satisfactory and corresponded to the statutory standards.

On 21 May 1998 the bill of indictment was drawn. On the next day the case was transmitted to court.

On 26 April 2001 the Magadan Town Court convicted the applicant of theft and sentenced him to seven years six months’ imprisonment. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 8 May 2001.

2.      Alleged interference with the applicant’s correspondence

The applicant submitted that on an unspecified date in 2002 the administration of the prison where he had been serving his sentence had informed him that all his correspondence with the Court would be first processed by the Department of Execution of Punishment of the Ministry of Justice and then forwarded to the Court.

In 2004 the applicant was released from the prison.

COMPLAINTS

1.  The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the conditions of detention in the remand prison IZ 47/1 of Magadan had been appalling.

2.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him.

3.  The applicant complained under Article 34 of the Convention that during his imprisonment his correspondence with the Court since 2002 had been censored.

THE LAW

The Court, having regard to the events that occurred after the notice of the application had been given to the Russian Government and after they had submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case, considers that it does not have to examine the present application and that Article 37 § 1 of the Convention should be applied. That provision, in its relevant part, reads:

“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

(a)      the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;

...

However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”

In this respect the Court notes that on 6 October 2004 the Registry informed the applicant in a letter that a notice of the application had been given to the respondent Government. On 10 January 2005 the Registry received the applicant’s letter of 30 November 2004 informing the Court that he had been released from the prison and wished to pursue his application. On 24 January 2005 the Registry sent a copy of the Court’s letter of 6 October 2004 to the applicant’s new address. On 26 January 2005 the Registry sent the applicant the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application and invited him to submit his observations in reply by 30 March 2005. The applicant did not reply. On 10 June 2005 the Court advised the applicant that he had not complied with the time-limits for submission of his observations, and that in the absence of an application for extension of the time-limits the Court might conclude that he was no longer interested in pursuing the application and decide to strike it out of its list of cases. On 8 August 2005 the Registry received the letter of 10 June 2005 returned by the post because it had not been claimed by the addressee at the post office within the time-limits for correspondence storage. Since then the Court received no correspondence from the applicant.

In these circumstances, having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant has lost interest in his application and no longer intends to pursue it before the Court. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Michael O’BOYLE Nicolas BRATZA 
  Registrar President

PATRIKEYEV v. RUSSIA DECISION


PATRIKEYEV v. RUSSIA DECISION