CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 9 mars 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF43307A6 { width:17.2pt; display:inline-block } .s6EC4715C { width:180.07pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 17645/04 by Nicat KAZIMOV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9   March 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   A. Kovler ,   Mrs   E. Steiner ,   Mr   K. Hajiyev, judges , and Mr S. Quesada , Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 March 2004, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Nicat Mirəsgər oğlu Kazımov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1978 in Lankaran (Azerbaijan). 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. In 2000 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on suspicion of desertion from the Azerbaijani army. As the applicant had absconded, his name was put on the wanted persons’ list. On 15 September 2003 the Russian police arrested the applicant in St.   Petersburg with a view to extraditing him. On 15 December 2003 the Prosecutor General’s office decided to extradite the applicant to Azerbaijan. The applicant appealed against the extradition decision to a court. On 15   March 2004 the St. Petersburg City Court upheld the decision of 15   December 2003. On 12 June 2004 the applicant was extradited to Azerbaijan. On 13 July 2004 the Sumqayit Military Court of Azerbaijan convicted the applicant of desertion from the Azerbaijani army and gave him a suspended sentence of one year’s imprisonment. It appears that the applicant was immediately released. His whereabouts since that date are unknown. COMPLAINTS Under Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention, the circumstances surrounding his arrest and unfairness of the judicial proceedings. THE LAW On 25 March 2004 the applicant introduced his application. Since that date the Court has received no correspondence from him. On 27 April 2005 the application was communicated to the respondent Government. On 25 August 2005 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received and the applicant was invited to submit his written observations in reply by 2 November 2005. The letter was sent at the applicant’s address in St. Petersburg. On 26 September 2005 the English version of the Government’s observations was forwarded to the applicant. The time-limit for the submission of the applicant’s observations remained unaffected. On 27 September 2005 an additional copy of the Government’s observations was sent at the applicant’s presumed address in Azerbaijan. As the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by the indicated time-limit, on 23 November 2005 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in his application being struck out of the list of cases. To date the applicant has not replied. 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.” The applicant was advised that he was to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. He was subsequently reminded thereof. The applicant has not replied to date. In fact, he has not contacted the Court since 25 March 2004. His present-day address, following extradition on 13 July 2004, is not known. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, it considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case. In these circumstances it considers that Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Santiago Quesada   Christos Rozakis Deputy Registrar   President