Communicated on 24 November 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 45185/17 Edgar Gevorgovich MKRTCHYAN against Russia lodged on 12 June 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Edgar Gevorgovich Mkrtchyan , is an Armenian national, who was born in 1979 and is detained in the Vladimir Region.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 31 May 2016 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladimir found the applicant guilty of molestation of a juvenile and sentenced him to 7.5 years ’ imprisonment. The judgment was not appealed against within the ten days ’ statutory time-limit.

On 14 July 2016 the town prosecutor asked the District Court to restore the time-limit for appeal. The prosecutor argued that the prosecutor ’ s office had received a copy of the judgment of 31 May 2016 only on 4 July 2016.

On 15 July 2016 the District Court dismissed the prosecutor ’ s request. Referring to the fact that a copy of the judgment of 31 May 2016 presented by the prosecutor to support his request, contained two stamps featuring two different dates, the judge called into doubts the prosecutor ’ s allegations as to when the judgment was received by the prosecutor ’ s office. It further noted that the case-file contained a confirmation that the prosecutor ’ s office had received a copy of the judgment of 31 May 2016 on 2 June 2016. The prosecutor appealed.

On 12 September 2016 the Vladimir Regional Court quashed the decision of 15 July 2016. The court reasoned that on 2 June 2016 a copy of the judgment of 31 May 2016 had been delivered to an employee of the prosecutor ’ s office other than the prosecutor who had taken part in the proceedings. The court considered that the prosecutor ’ s office had received a copy of the judgment of 31 May 2016 only on 4 July 2016 and reinstated the time-limit for the prosecutor ’ s appeal.

On 15 December 2016 the Regional Court upheld the applicant ’ s conviction, in substance, on appeal. However, unlike the trial court, the appeal court discerned no extenuating circumstances and increased the applicant ’ s sentence to 12.5 years ’ imprisonment.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unjustified reinstatement of the time-limit for the prosecutor ’ s appeal which infringed the principle of legal certainty resulting in the increase of his prison sentence.

QUESTION

Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, as regards the reinstatement of the time-limit for the prosecutor ’ s appeal against the judgment of 31 May 2016, was the principle of legal certainty respected?