CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 14 janvier 2014

.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 } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s132D428C { width:18.68pt; display:inline-block } .s1E0D05ED { width:166.6pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s5A070004 { width:213.96pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9FB98CC4 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s2B230C99 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:1.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s299B0C57 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s67CDEFD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.4pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFD82DC6 { margin-left:16.12pt; padding-left:1.73pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } - FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 33389/07 Ivan Vasilyevich KUZNETSOV against Russia and 35 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14   January 2014 as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse,   Ksenija Turković,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates indicated in the appendix, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A.     The circumstances of the case 1.     The applicants are Russian nationals living in various regions of the Russian Federation. Their names and dates of birth are tabulated below. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 2.     On various dates between 2007 and 2012 the applicants were criminally prosecuted and convicted for various offences under the Russian legislation in force. 3.     The applicants’ convictions were based among other evidence on the statements of one or more prosecution witnesses (including victims in certain cases), which were made during pre-trial stages of the proceedings and read out in open court while the witnesses were absent from trial. 4.     The national courts allowed the pre-trial statements to be read out and admitted these statements as evidence without examination of the witnesses during trials. In doing so the courts either did not specify the reasons for their decision or merely referred to an impossibility of the witnesses’ attendance. 5.     The applicants appealed against the judgments of convictions arguing inter alia that their convictions were unfair due to inability to examine prosecution witnesses. However the judgments of conviction were upheld on appeal and became final. The final judgments’ particulars, the initials of the witnesses, whose statements were read out, and the reasons for their absence stated by the domestic courts are tabulated below. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 1.     Code of Criminal Procedure 6 .     The Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation of 2001   (CCrP), which entered into force on 1 July 2002, provides that a victim or a witness of a crime shall normally be examined in court. 7.     Article 240 of the Code provides as follows: “1.     All the evidence should normally be presented at a court hearing ... The court should hear statements of the defendant, victim, witnesses ... and examine physical evidence ... 2.     The reading of pre-trial depositions is only permitted under Articles 276 and 281 of the Code ...” 8.     Pre-trial statements of a victim or a witness, who is absent during the trial, may be read out in the court upon the motion of one of the parties or upon the own motion of the court (Article 281 § 1-2). Article 281 § 2 of the Code provides for the list of grounds for pre-trial statements to be read out. In the relevant part it reads as follows: “2.     In case of absence at the court hearing of a victim or a witness the court may upon the motion of a party or upon its own motion decide to read out the previously given statements, in case of: 1) death of a victim or a witness; 2) grave illness precluding appearance in court; 3) refusal of a victim or a witness who is a foreign citizen to appear under the summons of the court; 4) natural disaster or other exceptional circumstances precluding appearance in court.” 2.     Supreme Court 9.     The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has clarified that under Article 281 § 1 of the CCrP the reading out of the pre ‑ trial statements of absent witnesses is in principle possible with the consent of both prosecution and defence. However, in exceptional cases prescribed by Article 281 § 2, the statements may be read out without the consent of both parties (see Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 5 March 2004 No. 1). 3.     Constitutional Court 10 .     In its admissibility decision of 27 October 2000 (no.   233 ‑ O), the Constitutional Court held that the reading out of pre-trial depositions should be considered as an exception to the court’s own assessment of evidence and should not upset the procedural balance between the interests of the prosecution and those of the defence. If a party insists on calling a witness whose testimony may be important to the case, the court should take all available measures to ensure the presence of the witness in court. When that witness is available for questioning, the reading out of his or her deposition should be considered inadmissible evidence and should not be relied upon. However, when the witness is not available for questioning, the defence should still be provided with appropriate procedural safeguards such as a challenge to the read-out deposition, a request for challenge by way of examining further evidence, as well as pre-trial face-to-face confrontation between that witness and the defendant when the latter was given an opportunity to put questions to the former (see also the admissibility decision of 7 December 2006 (no.   548-O)). COMPLAINTS 11.     The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 and Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention that they did not have a fair trial in criminal proceedings against them, since they were unable to obtain the attendance of the witnesses testifying against them and to examine them in court. 12.     The applicants further submit a number of accessory complaints concerning various aspects of the criminal proceedings against them under Articles   3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No.   7. THE LAW A.     Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention 13.     The applicants relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which, in its relevant parts, provides as follows: “1.     In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... 3.     Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (d)     to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him ...” 14.     The applicants complain that contrary to Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention they were unable to obtain the attendance of the witnesses testifying against them and to examine them in court. They point out that the national authorities and courts failed to take proper measures to secure attendance of the witnesses, but allowed reading out of their pre-trial statements during trials without good reasons. The applicants allege that their convictions were based solely or to a decisive degree on the basis of statements of absent witnesses. Therefore the applicants consider that they did not have an overall fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 15.     The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the applications to the respondent Government. B.     Other complaints 16.     The applicants further submit a number of accessory complaints under Articles 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 concerning alleged ill-treatment by police, conditions of detention, lack of medical treatment, lack of reasons and length of pre-trial detention, length of criminal proceedings, assessment of evidence, bias of the judges, police entrapment, inability to obtain reconsideration of their convictions, defects of legal assistance and other aspects of the criminal proceedings against them. 17.     However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. 18.     It follows that these parts of the applications are manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§   3   (a) and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention concerning inability to obtain the attendance of the witnesses testifying against them and to examine them in court; Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.   Søren Nielsen   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre   Registrar   President     Appendix   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth Represented by Final judgment Witness(es) absent from trial   33389/07 04/07/2007 Ivan Vasilyevich KUZNETSOV 05/06/1983     Moscow City Court, 21 March 2007 victim Mr N.   54480/07 15/10/2007 Vladimir Gennadyevich NAGIBIN 07/07/1955   Yelena Pavlovna ARTAMONOVA Moscow Regional Court, 17 April 2007 victim Mr R. and prosecution witness Mr Aks.   1570/08 09/12/2007 Mikhail Aleksandrovich FIRSTOV 03/07/1971 Dmitriy Vadimovich AREFYEV 24/04/1963     Moscow City Court, 13 June 2007 prosecution witness Mr K.   3975/08 12/12/2007 Dmitriy Grigoryevich ALEYNIKOV 27/11/1970     Moscow City Court, 13 June 2007 prosecution witness Mr K.   10309/08 22/01/2008 Sergey Anatolyevich KURBANOV 01/02/1982     Supreme Court of Khakasiya, 3 October 2007 victim Mr Ch.   10594/08 09/02/2008 Vladimir Yuryevich POSTOVALOV 08/12/1956     Rostov Regional Court, 18 September 2007 prosecution witness Mr F.   18069/08 27/01/2008 Maksim Romanovich ZLOBIN 10/09/1985     Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 27 July 2007 victim Mr N., prosecution witnesses Mr G. and Mr B.   24980/08 17/04/2008 Andrey Mikhaylovich PANCHENKO 09/09/1976     Supreme Court of Bashkortostan, 23 October 2007 prosecution witnesses Mr A., Mr   Sh. and Mr Sl.   30066/08 29/05/2008 Sergey Lvovich SANAYEV 11/02/1978     Tula Regional Court, 20 February 2008 prosecution witnesses Mr G. and Mrs Kr.   32015/08 03/06/2008 Roman Yevgenyevich VLASOV 11/09/1979     Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 9 January 2008 prosecution witness Mr K.   33965/08 04/06/2008 Sergey Gennadyevich SAVENKOV 12/10/1981   Radik Rashitovich RAKHMATULLIN Supreme Court of Bashkortostan, 6 December 2007 prosecution witness Mr T.   40306/08 09/06/2008 Lyubov Vasilyevna AKHTERYAKOVA 22/05/1981     Astrakhan Regional Court, 13 December 2007 prosecution witness Mrs Kaz.   46581/08 26/06/2008 Sergey Alekseyevich KOCHERGIN 01/06/1980     Supreme Court of Bashkortostan, 14 February 2008 prosecution witnesses Mr F. and Mr R.   47599/08 08/08/2008 Yuriy Valeryevich VYDRIN 05/03/1966     Krasnodar Regional Court, 27 February 2008 prosecution witnesses Mr S. and Mr Kos.   48895/08 15/09/2008 Sergey Vladimirovich SLOKHOV 25/06/1966   Tatyana Ivanovna PROTSENKO Moscow City Court, 8 August 2008 prosecution witnesses Mrs V., Mr M., Mr K., Mr   S., Mr Yud., Mr   R., Mr Ul., Mr   P., Mr Akh.   48905/08 15/09/2008 Gleb Aleksandrovich PAKULO 31/01/1968   Aleksey Mikhaylovich SURIN Moscow City Court, 8 August 2008 prosecution witnesses Mrs V., Mr M., Mr K., Mr   S., Mr Yud., Mr   R., Mr Ul., Mr   P., Mr Akh.   52304/08 25/09/2008 Aleksandr Eduardovich BLYUMIN 17/11/1964   Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich KOROLEV Moscow Regional Court, 26 August 2008 victim Mrs Yer.   54353/08 18/08/2008 Valentina Mikhaylovna URUKOVA 06/06/1961     Supreme Court of Chuvashiya, 28 August 2008 prosecution witnesses Mr Il., Mr   B., Mr Akh., Mr   Z., Mr P., Mrs   M.   7710/09 15/01/2009 Aleksey Aleksandrovich TKACHEV 05/10/1982     Astrakhan Regional Court, 14 August 2008 prosecution witnesses Mr B. and Mr Kh.   10781/09 05/11/2008 Igor Vladimirovich FEDYAYEV 29/07/1968   Aleksandr Petrovich POPOV Kursk Regional Court, 3 July 2008 prosecution witness Mrs Sh.   11068/09 10/09/2008 Aleksey Nikolayevich KHVALNOV 10/03/1979     Tambov Regional Court, 18 March 2008 prosecution witness Mrs Sem.   12565/09 07/02/2009 Arkadiy Vladislavovich AKLANOV 25/03/1971   Novosibirsk Regional Court, 11 August 2008 prosecution witness Mr Zh.   14252/09 03/02/2009 Ivan Borisovich TELEGIN 27/02/1978   Larisa Nikolayevna YEREMICHEVA Saint Petersburg City Court, 5 August 2008 victim Mr N.   35051/09 28/05/2009 Valeriy Nikolayevich KANAICHEV 05/04/1964     Moscow City Court, 18 March 2009 prosecution witnesses Mr R., Mr   K., Mr F., Mr   P., Mr Bozh, Mr Bryz.   35656/09 10/06/2009 Dmitriy Viktorovich DYAGILEV 08/12/1977   Aleksandr Vitalyevich VASILYEV Moscow City Court, 13 July 2009 prosecution witnesses Mr Sh. and Mr Akh., victim Mr S.   36235/09 02/09/2009 Eduard Anatolyevich DYACHOK 23/10/1968     Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 2 February 2010 prosecution witness Mr F.   46918/09 20/10/2009 Ivan Vladimirovich RYS 27/09/1984     Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 5 May 2009 prosecution witness Mrs Sh.   6752/12 26/03/2012 Dinmukhamed Mustapayevich YSAKOV 27/09/1982     Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 20 October 2011 prosecution witness Mr L.   66754/12 28/09/2012 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich NIKONOV 24/02/1979     Moscow City Court, 14 June 2012 prosecution witness Mr T.   68848/12 12/09/2012 Ruslan Rusamovich GALIYEV 13/02/1979     Supreme Court of Chuvashiya, 7 June 2012 victims Mrs S. and Mrs G.   892/13 12/12/2012 Vitaliy Vladimirovich DASHKOV 27/02/1976   Aleksey Vyacheslavovich SUSHKOV Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 27 June 2012 victim Mr T.   5987/13 17/01/2013 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich BELYAEV 04/10/1976     Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 3 August 2012 prosecution witness Mr M.   13105/13 18/02/2013 Zakhar Sergeyevich BERESTOVOY 10/08/1986   Lina Fedorovna MOTCHENKO Moscow City Court, 20 August 2012 prosecution witnesses Mrs P., Mr M., Mr N., Mr   S., Mrs Av.   13686/13 28/01/2013 Gennadiy Nikolayevich DOROSHCHENKO 07/03/1975     Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 22 January 2013 victim Mr Er. and prosecution witness Mrs Ver.   14360/13 09/01/2013 Dmitriy Vladislavovich GLAZYRIN 03/10/1970     Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 18 July 2012 victim Mrs M.   18635/13 25/12/2012 Boymukhamad Saidovich KODIROV 27/07/1967   Supreme Court of Chuvashiya, 28 June 2012 prosecution witness Mr B.