CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 6 octobre 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s11416D70 { height:43.25pt } .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 } .s74FF2621 { height:118.9pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 10491/15 Aleksey Mikhaylovich NEKRASOV against Russia (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6   October 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli , President,   Andreas Zünd ,   Frédéric Krenc , judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 14   February 2015, 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 was represented by Mr M. Yemelyanchik, a lawyer practising in Astrakhan. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention concerning the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses 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 Having examined all the material before it, the Court observes that the issue might arise as to whether the applicant, when introducing his application, complied with the time-limit established by Article   35   §   1 of the Convention (see Kashlan v. Russia (dec.), no. 60189/15, 19   April 2016). However, in the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that it is not necessary to rule on this issue, as the applicant’s complaints are, in any event, inadmissible In particular, as regards the complaint about the courts having held the criminal trial against him in the absence of a prosecution witness, the Court notes that in the light of the principles established in the case-law under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see notably Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§   118 ‑ 47, ECHR 2011, and Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no.   9154/10, §§   100 ‑ 31, ECHR 2015) the criminal trial in the applicant’s case complied with the overall fairness requirement. In view of the above, the Court finds that this complaint is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. As regards the remainder of the applicant’s allegations under Article   6 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 27 October 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Final domestic decision   Charges convicted of Witness absent from trial (indicated by initials) Summary of the nature of the witness evidence Reasons for absence Steps taken to compensate for the witnesses’ absence 10491/15 14/02/2015 Aleksey Mikhaylovich NEKRASOV 1981 Mikhail Aleksandrovich Yemelyanchik Astrakhan Astrakhan Regional Court (appeal hearing) 05/06/2014   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (second cassation review) 05/11/2014   drug dealing "Misha"   A person who bought drugs from the applicant   The witness’s statement was not decisive or sole; the applicant’s conviction was based on forensic evidence, audio recordings of his dealings with “Misha” and statement of other witnesses, including those testifying on the applicant’s behalf could not be located, possibly moved to another region/other country Examination of the witnesses on the applicant’s behalf; examination of forensic evidence and other witnesses in court. The applicant was represented by counsel and could challenge the evidence presented by the prosecution.