CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 mai 2022

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; 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 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 74201/17 Aleksey Petrovich MANANNIKOV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 May 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Andreas Zünd,   Mikhail Lobov, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 18   April 2009, 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. The applicant was represented by Mr N. Zboroshenko, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 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”). THE LAW The Government submitted their observations, having disputed the violation alleged. They further stated that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been discontinued for lack of corpus delicti giving rise to the right to rehabilitation which included, inter alia , a right to claim damages in connection with the criminal prosecution and detention. They asked the Court to reject the applicant’s complaints for his failure to make use of that remedy. The Court observes that the applicant’s complaints concern allegedly unlawful deprivation of liberty in connection with the criminal prosecution against him. It accepts, regard being had to the developments in the applicant’s case, that a possibility to claim damages, as argued by the Government, constitutes an adequate and sufficient remedy for the applicant’s grievances (for relevant domestic law provisions see Shcherbakov v. Russia , no. 23939/02, §§ 40-48, 17 June 2010). Lastly, the Court notes that the applicant did not argue that he was precluded from obtaining such compensation or that his relevant claims were dismissed by the domestic courts. In view of the above, the Court considers that the applicant should exhaust the remedy available to him before his complaints can be examined by the Court. It follows that this application should be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article   35   §§   1 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 9 June 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   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   Representative’s name and location Start date of unauthorised detention End date of unauthorised detention 74201/17 18/04/2009 Aleksey Petrovich MANANNIKOV 1956 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow 22/03/2006, 2 p.m.     20/04/2006, 10 a.m.     20/11/2006, 10 a.m. 23/03/2006, 11 a.m. (appealed, final - Kemerovo Regional Court, 12/03/2009)   20/04/2006, 4 p.m. (appealed, final - Kemerovo Regional Court, 09/07/2009)   20/11/2006, 5 p.m. (appealed, final - Kemerovo Regional Court, 05/11/2009)