CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 septembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size: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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3225EC85 { width:33.12pt; display:inline-block } .s13C999E6 { width:151.43pt; display:inline-block } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 41969/05 Yevgeniy Ruslanovich SHESTAKOV against Russia and 7 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25   September 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicants are Russian nationals living in various regions of the Russian Federation. Their personal details appear in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. 3.     The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     On various dates between 2005 and 2014 the applicants were criminally prosecuted and convicted of various offences. 5.     The applicants’ convictions were based among other evidence on the statements of one or more witnesses for prosecution, which were made during pre-trial stages of the proceedings and read out in open court while those witnesses were absent. 6.     Allowing the witnesses’ pre-trial statements as evidence the trial courts in their judgments relied on the impossibility to locate them, and/or their refusal to appear at court, and/or remoteness of their place of residence as well as engagements existing at the material time and/or their poor state of health that made impossible for them to appear before the court. 7.     The convictions were based on a multiplicity of evidence, including statements by the applicants made at the pre-trial stage and at trial in the presence of their lawyers, trial statements by the police officers, other witnesses for prosecution, material and documentary evidence. The domestic courts analysed the witnesses’ pre-trial statements and established their coherence and consistency with other evidence. 8.     The judgments of the trial courts were upheld on appeal. COMPLAINTS 9.     The applicants complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that the domestic courts had not provided good reasons for reading-out of the pre-trial statements of the witnesses for prosecution and thus the applicants had been unable to have those witnesses examined at the trial. THE LAW 10.     The Court first considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications listed in the appended table should be joined, given their common legal background. 11.     The respondent Government in their observations argued that applicants had had a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. They argued that the applicants’ convictions were based on other abundant evidence. Referring to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, as well as the relevant interpretative guidelines and practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Government contended that the Russian legal system had afforded the applicants sufficient procedural safeguards aimed at securing their right to examine witnesses testifying against them and guarantees of a fair trial. 12.     Certain applicants disagreed, while the others did not provide specific arguments. 13.     The Court has carefully examined the applications listed in the appended table and concluded that, in the light of the Court’s primary concern under Article 6 § 1 to evaluate the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011, and Schatschaschwili v.   Germany [GC], no.   9154/10, § 101, ECHR 2015), the presumption that in principle the Russian legal system offers robust procedural guarantees securing the right of an accused to examine witnesses testifying against him, ensuring that the reading out of absent witnesses’ testimony is possible only as an exception (see Zadumov v. Russia , no. 2257/12, § 63, 12   December 2017, recently reiterated in Kiba and Others (dec.), nos. 38047/08 and 2   others, § 16, 17 April 2018), the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the applications are manifestly ill-founded, and thus must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§ 3 (a) 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 18 October 2018.   Fatoş Aracı   Alena Poláčková   Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth Place of residence Represented by Date of the trial and appeal courts’ judgments Witness absent from trial     41969/05 31/10/2005   Yevgeniy Ruslanovich SHESTAKOV   19/02/1983 Mtsensk   Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow 09/03/2005   Moscow City Court 15/06/2005   Convicted of several counts of aggravated robbery in conspiracy     Mr K.         7873/08 26/01/2008   Vladimir Aleksandrovich MOROSYAK   01/12/1978 Tomsk   Larisa Nikolayevna AGAPOVA Kirovskiy District Court of Tomsk 27/06/2007   Tomsk Regional Court 13/08/2007   Convicted of sexual assault of an elderly woman (88 years old)     Mrs A.     24755/08 16/03/2008   Andrey Vladimirovich RANKIN   19/11/1976 Severodvinsk   Igor Yuryevich TELYATYEV Severodvinskiy Town Court of the Arkhangelsk Region 21/09/2007   Arkhangelsk Regional Court 06/11/2007   Convicted of infliction of grievous bodily injuries that led to the victim’s death     Mrs K.     32927/10 18/05/2010   Mikhail Semenovich BAKHSHYAN   07/07/1986 Krasnodar   Irina Rufimovna MINVALEYEVA Pervomayskiy District Court of Krasnodar 17/08/2009   Krasnodar Regional Court 18/11/2009   Convicted of infliction of grievous bodily injuries to the victim     Mr D.     49120/10 29/07/2010   Roman Alekseyevich GOLOVKO   26/02/1970 Ulan-Ude   Timiryazevskiy District Court of Moscow 24/12/2009   Moscow City Court 16/06/2010   Convicted of attempted drug dealing in conspiracy   Mr Sh.     49151/10 10/08/2010   Sergey Alekseyevich ARTYUSHKIN   24/08/1977 Ulyanovsk   Leninskiy District Court of Ulyanovsk 12/02/2010   Ulyanovsk Regional Court 31/03/2010   Convicted of attempted drug dealing in conspiracy     Mrs P.     49361/10 09/08/2010   Aleksey Vladimirovich KACHALIN   12/04/1978 Yelizavetinskaya   Vladimir Nikolayevich YEREMENKO Temryukskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region 29/12/2009   Krasnodar Regional Court 03/03/2009   Convicted of infliction of grievous bodily injuries that led to the victim’s death   Mr A., Mr K., Mr S.     42424/14 31/05/2014   Pavel Viktorovich ANISIMOV   27/08/1981 Murmansk   Aleksandr Yuryevich DERIYEV Leninskiy District Court of Moscow 20/02/2014   Murmanks Regional Court 22/04/2014   Convicted of attempted drug dealing     Mr K.