CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 octobre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Communicated on 19 October 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 30877/16 Aleksandr Vladimirovich ZHIVITSA against Russia lodged on 27 April 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the non-application of the statutory period for prosecution defined as a matter of substantive criminal law by Article 78 of the Russian Criminal Code. It provided that in respect of crimes punishable by death penalty or life imprisonment a court could “find it impossible to absolve [a defendant] of criminal liability”. As a consequence, punishments other than death penalty or life imprisonment would need to be imposed. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the judicial discretion concerning the application of the statutory time-limit for prosecution circumscribed, in a foreseeable and adequate manner, by the applicable legislation or, at least, any previous settled judicial practice (by the Constitutional Court of Russia or the Supreme Court of Russia) to avoid arbitrariness? If not, was there a violation of Article 7 of the Convention on account of the refusal to apply the statutory time-limit for prosecution (compare Rohlena v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 59552/08, § 58, ECHR 2015; Kononov v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04 , §§   228-33, 17   May 2010; K.-H.W. v. Germany [GC], no. 37201/97 , §§   107 ‑ 12, 22   March 2001; and Previti v. Italy (dec.), no.   1845/08 , §§   80 ‑ 85, 12   February 2013)?   2.     Were there violations of Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention on account of the inspection of the applicant’s application form dated 27   April 2016 before its dispatch to the Court (see Yefimenko v. Russia , no.   152/04, §§   135-65, 12   February 2013)?