THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 27356/05 and 55086/10 Oleg Vladimirovich YUSHKEVICH against Russia and Pavel Sergeyevich KRECHETOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 February 2018 as a Committee composed of:

Helen Keller, President, Pere Pastor Vilanova, Alena Poláčková , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 29 December 2005 and 6 August 2010 respectively,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant in application no. 27356/05, Mr Oleg Vladimirovich Yushkevich , is a Russian national, who was born in 1975 and is detained in Kamenka , the Bryansk Region.

The applicant in application no. 55086/10, Mr Pavel Sergeyevich Krechetov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1987 and is detained in Kemerovo.

The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin , Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

Between 2004 and 2010 the two applicants were convicted of various criminal offences. Their cases were then examined by appeal courts in the absence of the applicants ’ counsel. The convictions were upheld.

P ersonal details and information relevant to the criminal proceedings against the applicants appear in the appendix below.

RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

The relevant domestic legal provisions governing, at the material time, lawyer ’ s participation in appeal proceedings in a criminal case were summarised in the Court ’ s judgments in the cases of Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, §§ 31-39, 2 November 2010; Shumikhin v. Russia , no. 7848/06, § 17, 16 July 2015; Volkov and Adamskiy v. Russia , nos. 7614/09 and 30863/10, §§ 21-26, 26 March 2015; Eduard Rozhkov v. Russia , no. 11469/05, §§ 11-13, 31 October 2013, and Nefedov v. Russia , no. 40962/04, § 17, 13 March 2012.

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

II. COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 3 (c) OF THE CONVENTION

The applicants complained that they had not been represented on appeal in their criminal cases contrary to the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, which, insofar as relevant, read as follows:

“1. In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

...

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; ...”

The Government submitted that the first applicant, Mr Yuskevich (application no. 27356/05), had applied to the Court belatedly. They stressed that the Court ’ s Registry had erred in the determination of the introduction date of his application. As to application no. 55086/10 by the second applicant, Mr Krechetov , it was manifestly ill-founded because he had been represented by a lawyer at his appeal hearing.

With regard to the application made by Mr Yushkevich (no. 27356/05), the Court observes that on 29 July 2005 the Registry acknowledged the receipt of the applicant ’ s first letter and instructed him to submit a complete application form within the following six weeks. He, however, only dispatched his application on 29 December 2005. Accordingly, the latter date should be regarded as the date of the introduction of the case. Having regard to the fact that the final appeal hearing in the Mr Yushkevich ’ s criminal case took place on 26 May 2005, the Court finds his complaints inadmissible for non-compliance with the six -month rule. The application should therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

Turning to application no. 55086/10 lodged by Mr Krechetov , the Court observes that a lawyer was assigned to assist him at the appeal hearing. Having regard to the fact that the applicant and his lawyer supported the same line of defence and made similar submissions before the appeal court and that the applicant did not object to the appointment and did not complain about the quality of the legal assistance, the Court finds that Mr Krechetov ’ s complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 1 March 2018 .

FatoÅŸ Aracı Helen Keller              Deputy Registrar President