CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 juin 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left }   Communicated on 16 October 2012 and 13 June 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no 10586/07 A.Y. against Russia lodged on 27 January 2007     The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS 1.     Is Article 6 applicable to the facts of which the applicant complains (compare, Antoine v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no.   62960/00/05, 13 May 2003, and Vasenin v. Russia , no. 48023/06, §   130, 21   June 2016).   2.     Is the fact that the court decided on the issue of the applicant’s deprivation of liberty on 5   July 2006 in his absence compatible with the guarantees set out in Article   5   §   1   (e) of the Convention?