CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 décembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s9EADC58A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .sD7AA71C8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8B7697D0 { width:20.77pt; display:inline-block } .s4024CB39 { width:139.08pt; display:inline-block } .sF7DC134C { width:39.46pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 4493/07 Stanislav Ernestovich ISARLOV against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10   December 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 December 2006, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Stanislav Ernestovich Isarlov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Revda. He was represented before the Court by Ms N.P. Yermilova, who resides in Yekaterinburg. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G.   Matyushkin, former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr   M. Galperin. 3.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 4.     In 2005 the applicant was prosecuted for false denunciation and reporting of crimes allegedly committed by employees of a municipal hospital. According to forensic psychiatric assessment report of 22 May 2006 the applicant suffered from a mental disorder, which required inpatient treatment in a psychiatric facility. 5.     On unspecified date the applicant’s legal capacity was restricted and he was placed under guardianship of his mother Ms P. 6.     On 11 July 2006 the Revda Town Court found that the applicant had made false accusation of criminal acts, relieved him of criminal liability in view of the applicant’s mental disorder and ordered his inpatient treatment. The hearing was held in the applicant’s absence, but in the presence of his court-appointed lawyer, Mr M., and his legal guardian Ms P. Both Ms P. and Mr M. expressly agreed to the hearing in the applicant’s absence. 7.     The applicant was placed in a psychiatric facility. The above order has not been appealed by the applicant, his lawyer Mr M. or his guardian Ms P. 8.     On 23 May 2007 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court by a final judgment refused to restore the time-limit for lodging an appeal by Ms E., since she did not participate in the above proceedings as the applicant’s representative. 9.     On 3 September 2007 the applicant was released from the facility upon completion of his treatment. 10.     On 25 July 2008 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court by a final judgment refused to restore the time-limit for lodging an appeal by the applicant. The Regional Court stated that the applicant never lodged an appeal against the 2006 order without any reasonable explanation, while at the very least on 3   December 2007 he was fully acquainted with the content of the relevant case-file. COMPLAINTS 11.     The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that neither he, nor Ms R. had been afforded an opportunity to attend the hearing on 11 July 2006 or appeal against the hospitalisation order. He further lodged ancillary complaints under Articles 5, 6 and 14 of the Convention. THE LAW 12.     The respondent Government in their observations argued that the above complaints were inadmissible on various grounds. The applicant disagreed. 13.     The Court observes in particular that nothing indicates that the applicant was inadequately represented at the hearing of 11 July 2006 or that he was prevented from lodging an appeal in compliance with the domestic law. Having carefully examined the application, the available material and the parties’ observations, the Court concludes that the applicant’s complaints are inadmissible and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3   (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 23 January 2020.   Stephen Phillips   Alena Poláčková   Registrar   President