CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 novembre 2015

.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 } .s44F992B2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; line-height:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   Communicated on 25 June 2015 and 5 November 2015   THIRD SECTION Application no 9798/12 Andrey Igorevich RESIN against Russia lodged on 23 November 2011     The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC.   QUESTIONS     1.     Was there a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article   6   § 1 of the Convention on account of the failure of the Moscow City Court to ensure his participation in the appellate hearings of 20 May 2015?   2.     Having regard to the judgments of 7 July 2014 and of 20 May 2015, did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, was the award made by the Moscow City Court reasonably commensurate with the awards made by the Court in similar cases? The Government are requested to produce other examples of domestic judgments in which claimants received compensation for the unlawful use of handcuffs.