CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 avril 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 } .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 } .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 } .s219AC2B9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:left } .s75B8D6BE { width:182.33pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB62BA9AD { width:168.28pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 11638/17 Vladimir Pavlovich BOGODIST against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12   April 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 February 2017, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the application is inadmissible. In particular, the Court reiterates the Government’s argument that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention given that in the final judgment of 3   August 2016 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court had expressly acknowledged that the length of the criminal proceedings in his case had been excessive and had awarded the applicant 50,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation for damage. In this respect, the Court observes that where domestic proceedings include an admission of the breach by the national authorities and the payment of a sum of money amounting to redress, the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Shcherbakov v. Russia , no. 23939/02, §§ 55-64, 17 June 2010). The Court also reiterates that it has recently found that three applicants lost their status as “victims” of the alleged violation of their right to a trial within a reasonable time after the domestic courts had awarded them sums of money in the “rehabilitation” proceedings, taking into account in particular the duration of the criminal proceedings (see Khanov and Others v.   Russia (dec.), nos. 15327/05 et al., 30 June 2016). The Court sees no reason to depart from that finding in respect of the present application, where the applicant has been awarded significant compensation for damage related to the length of the criminal prosecution against him. It thus accepts the Government’s argument concerning the loss of the applicant’s victim status. Accordingly, the case brought by the applicant is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 3 May 2018. Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction 11638/17 02/02/2017 Vladimir Pavlovich Bogodist 24/04/1966 25/06/2008   30/06/2015   7 year(s) and 6 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction.