CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 octobre 2024

.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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s527DE03B { width:127.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; 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 } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 74582/17 Mikhail Vyacheslavovich GERASIMOV against Russia (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10   October 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis , President ,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Diana Kovatcheva , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 13   September 2017, 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 was represented by Mr N.   M. Platkovskiy, a lawyer practising in Khabarovsk. The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention concerning the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses was 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 complaint under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention concerning his right to examine witnesses in the course of the criminal proceedings against him is inadmissible. In particular, 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 Al‑Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-47, ECHR 2011, Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no.   9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015, and Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no.   36658/05, §§ 117-27, 18 December 2018), the applicant’s criminal trial had complied with overall fairness requirement (for further details see appended table below). 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 7   November 2024.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Ioannis Ktistakis   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 Convicted of Witness (indicated by initials) Absent Evidence type Reasons for absence Counterbalancing factors Overall fairness 74582/17 13/09/2017 Mikhail Vyacheslavovich GERASIMOV 1980   Platkovskiy Nikolay Mikhaylovich Khabarovsk Far Eastern District Military Court   17/05/2017   abuse of office, forgery Mr Bo., Mrs Be. absent   circumstantial Court’s refusal to call witness for the defence No breach of the overall fairness due to the strength of the other prosecution evidence