CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 septembre 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 } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 41478/13 and 82669/17 Yevgeniy Valeriyevich CHEPLAKOV against Russia and Vladislav Vitalyevich LUNEV against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13   September 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 applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ 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 A.     Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. B.     Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention The applicants complained of their placement in a metal cage during the criminal proceedings against them, including the trial and appeal. The Government, while confirming the applicants’ placement in a metal cage during the trial proceedings, have insisted that the applicants were not placed in a cage during the appeal hearings. The Court does not have any reason to doubt the Government’s submissions supported by documents. It observes that the trial against the applicant, Mr Cheplakov, ended with his conviction on 27   September 2012 and the trial against Mr Lunev was terminated on 30 March 2017. The two applicants lodged their applications with the Court on 13   June 2012 and 20   November 2017, respectively. It thus follows that the applicants’ complaints about their placement in a cage during the trial were lodged more than six months after the termination of the trial proceedings against them (see Akimenkov v. Russia , nos. 2613/13 and 50041/14, §   93, 6   February 2018). The applicants have not submitted that there existed any exceptional circumstances preventing them from complying with the six months’ rule. The Court therefore considers that their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention about being placed in metal cages during the trial were lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. The applicant’s complaints about their caging during the appeal proceedings were not supported by the evidence submitted by the parties. The Court thus considers that this part of the applications is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 4 October 2018.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth   Representative name and location Name of the court Date of the relevant judgment     41478/13 13/06/2013 Yevgeniy Valeriyevich Cheplakov 21/01/1990     Abakinskiy Town Court of the Republic of Khakassia 27/09/2012   Supreme Court of the Republic of Khakassia 18/12/2012       82669/17 20/11/2017 Vladislav Vitalyevich Lunev 26/08/1981 Storozhenko Nikolay Nikolayevich Stavropol Promyshlennyy District Court of Stavropol 30/03/2017   Stavropol Regional Court 19/07/2017