CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 8 mars 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .sF5ED19DC { width:178.27pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 55984/16 Yuriy Yuryevich PIMAKIN against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8   March 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 September 2016, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Yuriy Yuryevich Pimakin, was born in Astrakhan. The applicant’s complaints under Article   3 of the Convention concerning the use of metal cages in courtrooms were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Complaints under Article   3 of the Convention In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the application is inadmissible. In particular, the Court notes that the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment through his placement in a metal cage took place during the first-instance hearing, which finished on 2 September 2015, and the applicant did not allege that this treatment had continued during the appeal hearing. The Court acknowledges the Government’s submission that no remedy was available to the applicant in relation to the courtroom arrangements, in particular that the appeal court was not capable of providing redress in relation to the alleged violation. It therefore agrees with the Government that the six-month time-limit in this case should be calculated from the date when the alleged treatment ceased. The Court further notes that the applicant lodged his application with the Court for the first time almost a year after the event in question, on 12 September 2016. The Court therefore considers that the applicant has missed the time-limit for lodging his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention about the placement in a metal cage. The application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention (see Yaroslav Belousov v.   Russia , nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 114-116, 4 October 2016 and Grishin v. Russia , no. 30983/02, § 83, 15 November 2007). For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 29 March 2018.   Liv Tigerstedt   Luis López Guerra Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Name of the court Date of the relevant judgment     55984/16 12/09/2016 Yuriy Yuryevich Pimakin 01/01/1982 Privolzhskiy District Court of the Astrakhan Region 02/09/2015