[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Yuriy RYCHKOV v Russia - 2210/04 [2008] ECHR 1786 (4 December 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1786.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1786

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 2210/04
by Yuriy RYCHKOV
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 December 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,

and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 November 2003,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Yuriy Stepanovich Rychkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1962 and lives in St Petersburg. He is represented before the Court by Mrs K. Kil, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg. The respondent Government were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, former 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.

On 20 March 2002 an investigation against the applicant and another person (Mr M.) was opened on suspicion of extortion and corruption.

On 20 June 2002 a deputy prosecutor of the Frunzenskiy District approved the bill of indictment and submitted the case for trial. The applicant was charged with abuse of power and fraud.

On 30 January 2006 the Frunzenskiy District Court issued the judgment by which it found the applicant and M. innocent of fraud. By a separate decision of the same date, the District Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the charge of abuse of power. A copy of the acquittal was served on the parties on 9 February 2006.

On 3 March 2006 the prosecutor asked the District Court to extend the time-limit for lodging an appeal against the acquittal. She did not cite any specific facts in support of her request. On 30 May 2006 the District Court accepted the prosecutor’s request.

On 13 July 2006 the St Petersburg City Court examined the merits of the prosecutor’s appeal, quashed the acquittal on procedural grounds and ordered a new trial. The applicant was present at the hearing.

On 31 March 2008 the Frunzenskiy District Court acquitted the applicant and M. of fraud. The judgment indicated that the applicant had the right to compensation for the damage in connection with the criminal prosecution.

On 5 June 2008 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the acquittal on appeal.

By letter of 6 July 2008, the applicant informed the Court of his intention to withdraw the application.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention about the custodial measure. He also complained under Article 6 about the excessive length of the proceedings and certain irregularities during the trial. Finally, he complained under Articles 13 and 17 that he had not had an effective remedy and that the domestic courts abused his rights.

THE LAW

The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:

“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.”

It follows from the applicant’s letter that he does not intend to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court notes that the applicant was acquitted of all charges and that he has a right to compensation for the damage incurred through the criminal prosecution. It therefore considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of their complaints. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the list of cases.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President