CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 octobre 2021

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .s3DF5EF88 { width:128.75pt; 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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39109D2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; 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 } .s9047E8B1 { height:45.4pt } .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 } .s12EC6D70 { height:44.65pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 5748/17 Yevgeniy Valeryevich RYZHOV against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7   October 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Andreas Zünd, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 28   December 2016, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. According to the applicant, at the relevant time he acted as defence counsel for two defendants in a criminal case. On 2   June 2015 the investigator ordered that the applicant appear for questioning in connection with that criminal case. On 3   June 2015 police officers transported the applicant from Nizhniy Novgorod to a hotel in Moscow. On 4   June 2015 the applicant escaped from the hotel and subsequently left the country. His lawyer unsuccessfully tried to challenge the investigator’s decision of 2   June 2015. The final relevant decision was taken by the Moscow City Court on 20   April 2016. On 23   March 2016 the applicant’s lawyer lodged another complaint challenging the lawfulness of his detention. The final relevant decision on the matter dismissing the complaint was taken by the City Court on 22   August 2016. The applicant’s complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW Complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty)) The applicant complained that his detention from 3 to 4   June 2015 effected for the purpose of questioning as per the investigator’s order of 2   June 2015 had been in contravention of Article   5   §   1 of the Convention. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month rule in respect of his grievances. In response, the applicant considered that he had complied with the admissibility requirements, by having lodged a complaint challenging the lawfulness of his detention from 3 to 4   June 2015 on 23   March 2016. The relevant proceedings had ended with the decision of the City Court delivered on 22   August 2016 which date should be taken by the Court when applying the six-month rule in his case. The Court reiterates that the purpose of the six-month rule is to promote legal certainty and to ensure that cases raising issues under the Convention are dealt with within a reasonable period of time. Furthermore, it is also meant to protect the authorities and other parties concerned from being left in a state of uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (see Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III, and Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002). Where no remedies are available or are judged to be ineffective, the six-month time-limit in principle runs from the date of the act complained of (see Hazar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 62566/00, 10 January 2002). However, special considerations may apply in exceptional cases in which an applicant avails himself of, or relies on, an apparently existing remedy and only subsequently becomes aware of circumstances which render such a remedy ineffective; in such a case it is appropriate to take the start of the six-month period as the date on which he or she first became aware or ought to have become aware of those circumstances rendering the remedy ineffective (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no.   46477/99, 7 June 2001). Having examined the facts of the present case, the Court accepts, and the applicant does not argue otherwise, that the investigator’s decision of 2   June 2015 to obtain the applicant’s attendance for questioning served as a basis for his ensuing detention from 3 to 4   June 2015. In such circumstances the Court accepts that, regard being had to outcome of the domestic proceedings which ended on 20   April 2016 and in which the applicant unsuccessfully challenged the investigator’ decision in question, he should have realised that any new attempt to complain about the same events would not be effective. Accordingly, the Court finds that, in the circumstances of the case, the applicant ought to have been aware at least on 20   April 2016 that yet another application to the domestic courts would be devoid of purpose and that he was to introduce his application to the Court no later than within six months after that date. Having lodged the complaint on 28   December 2016, the applicant failed to comply with the six months’ rule. Accordingly, the Court finds that the complaint must be rejected for the applicant’s failure to comply with the six-month time-limit set out in Article   35 §§ 1 of the Convention. Remaining complaints The applicant also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 28 October 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Peeter Roosma   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   5 § 1 of the Convention (unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty)) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Start date of unauthorised detention End date of unauthorised detention Specific defects 5748/17 28/12/2016 Yevgeniy Valeryevich RYZHOV 1976 03/06/2015 04/06/2015 Forced attendance without evidence of proper summons to appear or of failure by the   applicant to comply without a valid excuse (see Rozhkov v.   Russia (no. 2), no.   38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31   January 2017)