CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 novembre 2020

.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 } .s29F12327 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sA3A61D5F { width:158.44pt; 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 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 13785/08 Dmitriy Nikolayevich SHCHERBATSEVICH against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5   November 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4   February 2008, 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 Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of an effective remedy in this respect were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Complaints about the excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of an effective remedy in this respect The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings in the case against him were excessively lengthy in violation of the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that he did not have an effective remedy to complain about the excessive length, as required by Article 13 of the Convention. The Government claimed that the applicant had failed to use the new Compensation Act adopted in response to the pilot judgment Burdov v.   Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009), and available to the applicant since 4 May 2010. They noted that the new Compensation Act provided all individuals who had complained to the Court that their right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated with a right to claim compensation in domestic courts within six months of its entry into force, if the Court had not yet ruled on the admissibility of the complaint. The Court has previously examined similar cases and has taken the view that, as a matter of principle, it would require that all cases introduced after the pilot judgment Burdov (no. 2) (cited above) and falling under the Compensation Act be submitted in the first place to the national courts ( Fakhretdinov and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 26716/09 and 2 others, §§   24-35, 23 September 2010). The Court reiterated that its task, as defined by Article 19 of the Convention, would not be best achieved by taking such cases to judgment in the place of domestic courts, let alone by considering them in parallel with the domestic proceedings (see Zaynullin and Others v.   Russia ( dec.), nos. 7977/09 and 8 others, 30 March 2017). The Court considers that the above reasoning fully applies to the application at hand. It does not find any reason to depart from the general approach adopted in Fakhretdinov and Others (cited above) in the present case. Like in Fakhretdinov and Others , the Court has no reason to doubt that the applicant was entitled to use the transitional provisions of the Compensation Act, available to him until 4 November 2010. There is nothing to suggest that the applicant had any difficulty to familiarise himself with the text of the Compensation Act and to submit his compensation claim to domestic courts under the transitional provisions within the relevant time-limit (see for similar reasoning, Zaynullin and Others , cited above). In the view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the applicant was required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention to avail himself of the new domestic remedy. Given the fact that the applicant did not attempt to use the Compensation Act, the application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 26 November 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Darian Pavli   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 Year of birth Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction   13785/08 04/02/2008 Dmitriy Nikolayevich SHCHERBATSEVICH 1968 08/09/2004   22/09/2008   4 year(s) and 15 day(s) 2   level(s) of jurisdiction