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 } .sC4774500 { height:34.9pt } .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 } .sAC0756B { height:54.45pt } .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. 48122/13 Vladimir Artemyevich FILINOV 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 10 June 2013, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, 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 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”). THE LAW In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that the applicant’s complaints about the alleged overall unfairness of the criminal (administrative) proceedings and about the courts’ failure to obtain attendance of witness S. upon the applicant’s requests are inadmissible. In particular, in the light of the principles established in the case-law under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see notably Murtazaliyeva v.   Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, 18 December 2018), the Court notes that the applicant’s criminal trial 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. 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   Final domestic decision   Charges convicted of Witness absent from trial (indicated by initials)   Summary of the nature of the witness evidence Reasons for absence 48122/13 10/06/2013 Vladimir Artemyevich FILINOV 1960 Volskiy District Court of the Saratov Region   17/12/2012   Article 12.8 § 1 of the CAO (drunk driving) witness S.   attesting witness who was present during the drafting of an administrative offence report could not be located, despite the authorities’ repeated attempts to locate him; another attesting witness was examined at the trial and testified in favour of the applicant.