CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 11 juin 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s232829D8 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s3B53EBCE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:3pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 32132/19 Dmitriy Gennadyevich SHARKOV against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11   June 2020 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 3   June 2019, 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 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s house arrest were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court reiterates that the applicant’s complaint is inadmissible for the following reasons. In particular, the Court observes that the applicant was convicted on 27 December 2017 and sentenced to a prison term; he remained under house arrest until his conviction became final. On 8 October 2018 the court of appeal, examining the applicant’s appeal against the conviction, extended the term of his house arrest; the applicant appealed. He, however, argued that the court delayed the service of the decision of 8   October 2018 on him. The applicant’s appeal against the decision of 8   October 2018 was received by the appeal court on 5 December 2018 and was duly examined on 26   December 2018. The Court finds that the delayed service of the court’s decision of 8   October 2018 did not prevent that examination. Moreover, since his conviction on 27   December 2017 the applicant had been deprived of liberty in compliance with Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Thus, he ceased to enjoy the guarantees of speediness of review of his deprivation of liberty after being convicted, as a consequence of the rebuttal of the presumption of innocence and absence of perspective of release ( see Parfenov and Barabash v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], nos.   16284/18 and 16288/18, 2 July 2019). In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with 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 2   July 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   First-instance court and date of detention order Appeal instance court and date of decision Procedural deficiencies 32132/19 03/06/2019 Dmitriy Gennadyevich SHARKOV 30/09/1979 Criminal Chamber of the Rostov Regional Court 08/10/2018 Appeal Chamber of the Rostov Regional Court. The applicant argues that the appeal decision has never been issued Lack of review of detention