CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 novembre 2019

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6F7FC1B9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } 274/ THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 20274/17 Elza Maratovna DAYANOVA against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28   November 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 22   February 2017, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details 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 by the appeal judgment of 17 January 2018 the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic had awarded the applicant 600,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation for damage, including in respect of the length of the criminal proceedings against her. 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 further notes that it has found that 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 and 15 others, 30 June 2016, and Bogodist v. Russia (dec.), no. 11638/17, 12 April 2018). 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 her. It thus considers that the applicant has lost her victim status. In addition, the Court does not lose sight of the fact that the applicant did not appeal against the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic of 17 January 2018, thus having most probably been satisfied with the award. 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 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 19 December 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth   Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction 20274/17 22/02/2017 Elza Maratovna Dayanova 19/11/1964 07/05/2008   03/11/2015   7 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 28 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction