ABDURAMANOV proti Ukrajině

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 7185/02 and 10929/02
by Abduraman Sentbekirovich ABDURAMANOV and
Asan Seitbekovich ABDURAMANOV
against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 13 November 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr P. Lorenzen, President,
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr K. Jungwiert,
Mr V. Butkevych,
Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mr R. Maruste,
Mr M. Villiger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 3 September 2001 (no. 7185/02) and 4 November 2001 (no. 10929/02),

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

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Mr Abduraman Seitbekirovich Abduramanov (first applicant, application no. 7185/02) and Mr Asan Seitbekovich Abduramanov (second applicant, application no. 10929/02). They were born in 1967 and 1964 respectively. Both of the applicants reside in the village of Verkhorechye, the Bakhchisaray District of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea. They are represented before the Court by Mr Oleksandr Lesovoy, a lawyer practicing in Simferopol, the Crimea.

The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.

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

On 6 March 2001 the Sevastopol Tax Police apprehended the first applicant for unlawful sale of flowers. They also seized the flowers, belonging to the second applicant and given for transportation to the first applicant by him, worth UAH 19,000[1].

On the same date, Judge B.I.V. of the Leninsky District Court of Sevastopol imposed an administrative fine of UAH 17[2] on the first applicant on account of a violation of Article 160 of the Code of Administrative Offences. Judge B.I.V. also ordered confiscation of the flowers.

The first applicant applied to the President of the Sevastopol City Court for supervisory review of the resolution of 6 March 2001. On 20 April 2001 the Sevastopol City Court quashed the resolution of 6 March 2001 and remitted the case for reconsideration to the same judge of the first instance court. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged Judge B.I.V. before the President of the Leninsky District Court of Sevastopol.

On 5 May 2001 Judge B.I.V. of the Leninsky District Court of Sevastopol found the first applicant guilty of an administrative offence under Article 160 of the Code of Administrative Offences and ordered him to pay a fine of UAH 17. The judge also ordered confiscation of the flowers belonging to the second applicant, without calling him into court. This resolution of the court became final and binding by virtue of Article 287 of the Code of Administrative Offences, which does not allow an appeal against an administrative decision imposing a fine and confiscation.

On 20 July 2001 the President of the Sevastopol City Court rejected the applicant’s request for review of the resolution of 5 May 2001 in the course of supervisory review proceedings.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained about the infringement of Articles 6 § 1, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They alleged that the domestic courts acted unlawfully in confiscating flowers belonging to the second applicant. The applicants alleged that Judge B.I.V. should not have heard their case for the second time as he had already heard their case for the first time and was therefore not independent and impartial. The second applicant complained that even though his flowers were confiscated, he was never called to the court to present his arguments in the case and he was never admitted to the case as a party to the confiscation proceedings. The applicants further alleged that they had no possibility of appeal against the resolution of 5 May 2001, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

The Court finds that because of the similarity of the factual and legal issues involved it is appropriate, under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, to join the applications and examine them simultaneously (see Nunes Dias v. Portugal (dec.), nos. 2672/03 and 69829/01, ECHR 2003‑IV).

Notice of the applications was given to the Government on 17 October 2005. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ complaints on 16 January 2006. The applicants’ representative has failed to submit observations in reply. Moreover, he has failed to respond to the communications from the Registry of the Court, the last of which was a registered letter dated 3 July 2006 warning the applicants of the possibility that their case might be struck out of the Court’s list if they failed to respond. Having regard to his personal signature on the return slip, the Court notes that the applicants’ representative received this letter in person on 10 July 2006. No reply was received to it.

Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicants do not intend to pursue their applications. 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 further examination of this case. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should be discontinued.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

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

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President

[1]. EUR 3,771.66.

[2]. EUR 3.38.