Судебное дело "Козлов против России"
09.02.2009
COUR EUROPEENNE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 25249/03
by Sergey KOZLOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 8
January 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou,yWgas, and Seren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 June 2003, Having
deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sergey Viktorovich Kozlov, is a Russian national who
was born in 1973 and lives in the town of Berezovskiy, Sverdlovsk
Region. He was represented before the Court by Ms L. Churkina, a
lawyer practising in Yekaterinburg. The Russian Government ("the
Government") were represented by Ms 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.
The applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft but later released
under an undertaking to appear before the court. He was detained again
in 2003. By judgment of 16 December 2003, the Kirovskiy District Court
of Yekaterinburg convicted the applicant of theft and sentenced him to
two years' imprisonment. It appears that the applicant was released on
3 June 2005 but detained again in September 2005 on new charges.
It appears that the applicant was detained in Yekaterinburg no. 1
remand centre between 2002 and 2006. The applicant unsuccessfully
complained to various public authorities about the conditions of his
detention. According to him, the cells were constantly overcrowded.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about
conditions of his detention.
The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that his
arrest and detention were unlawful.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had
not been afforded an opportunity to prepare for a remand hearing and
in general terms about deficiencies in the preliminary investigation.
He also relied on Articles 8,13 and 17 of the Convention.
THE LAW
In February 2008 the parties informed the Court that they had reached
a friendly settlement and enclosed a copy of the settlement agreement
signed by the applicant and Ms V. Milinchuk, the then Representative
of the Russian Federation at the Court. Under the terms of the
agreement the Russian authorities undertook to pay the applicant 5,000
euros (EUR), including value added tax, in full and final resolution
of the case. The above sum will be paid to the applicant within three
months of the date of notification of the Court's decision.
It was further stipulated that, subject to the fulfilment of the above
undertaking, the applicant had no further claims against the
authorities of the Russian Federation in respect of the facts set out
in his application before the Court.
The Court refers to Article 37 of the Convention which, in so far as
relevant, provides as follows:
"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...
(b) the matter has been resolved;...
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 Court takes note of the settlement reached between the parties.
The Court has no reason to doubt that the amount specified in this
settlement will be paid to the applicant as agreed. In these
circumstances, the Court considers that the matter was resolved at the
domestic level, within the meaning of Article 37 S: 1 (b) of the
Convention. Furthermore, the Court is satisfied that respect for human
rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require
it at present to continue the examination of the application (Article
37 S: 1 in fine). Accordingly, Article 29 S: 3 of the Convention
should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the
list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Добавить комментарий: