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. 45414/09 Aleksandr Sergeyevich IVAKIN against Russia and 14 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, except for Mr Shcherbatykh who is Ukranian, 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 2008 and 2010 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, and/or the death of the witnesses before the trial. 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     45414/09 29/07/2008   Aleksandr Sergeyevich IVAKIN   10/09/1971 Rostov-na-Donu     Novocherkasskiy Town Court of the Rostov Region 05/12/2008   Rostov Regional Court 22/04/2009   Convicted of two counts of attempted drug dealing and maintenance of the den of drug addicts   Mr D.     47156/09 03/06/2009   Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich SHELOKHVOSTOV   19/09/1982 Valuyki   Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow 15/10/2008   Moscow City Court 25/12/2008   Convicted of attempted drug dealing   Mrs M.     47660/09 03/08/2009   Ramiz Mamed Ogly ALLAKHVERDIYEV   29/10/1966 Kopeysk   Tsentralnuy District Court of Chelyabinsk 16/12/2008   Chelyabinsk Regional Court 25/02/2009   Convicted of attempted drug dealing in conspiracy     Mr K.     52016/09 07/09/2009   Oleg Grigoryevich KOBLOV   22/05/1970 Ryazan   Olga Mikhaylovna ZHAROVA Yegoryevskiy Town Court 16/02/2009       Moscow Regional Court 09/04/2009   Convicted of murder     Mr M. N., Mr   M. Sh.     54261/09 14/09/2009   Gennadiy Vyacheslavovich BUSHUYEV   19/06/1971 Tver   Mikhail Nikolayevich STEPANOV Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow 29/05/2009   Moscow City Court 27/07/2009   Convicted of murder     Mrs I.     18116/10 23/02/2010   Vitaliy Vadimovich GAPONENKO   01/10/1987 Surovikino   Volzhskiy Court of the Volgograd Region 19/05/2010   Volgograd Regional Court 10/08/2010   Convicted of robbery   Mr B.     25381/10 29/04/2010   Maksim Sergeyevich URUSOV   17/08/1988 Amursk   Eduard Valentinovich MARKOV Amurskiy Town Court of the Khabarovsk Region 25/06/2009   Khabarovsk Regional Court 29/10/2009   Convicted of infliction of grievous bodily injuries that led to the victim’s death   Mr T., Mr S.     32565/10 06/08/2010   Igor Gennadyevich TOKAREV   07/05/1975 Safonovo   Mikhail Ivanovich TREPASHKIN Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow 25/11/2009   Moscow City Court 15/02/2010   Convicted of attempted fraud   Mr P., Mr G., Mr Kr., Mr T., Mr Kosh., Mr S.     32610/10 21/07/2010   Andrey Vladimirovich KRUCHININ   14/03/1984 Murmansk   Oksana Vladimirovna PREOBRAZHENSKAYA Murmansk Regional Court 06/11/2009     Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 10/02/2010   Convicted of several counts of extortion and other crimes in conspiracy   Mr S.   35788/10 26/05/2010   Sergey Vladimirovich GRYAZNOV   07/11/1959 Khabarovsk     Tsentralnyy District Court of Khabarovsk 18/08/2009   Khabarovsk Regional Court 26/11/2009   Convicted of illegal entrepreneurial activity, money-laundering, making of counterfeit securities in conspiracy   Mr Z., Mr T., Mr G.   52220/10 17/08/2010   Maksim Aleksandrovich ABDULLIN   31/01/1983 Ufa   Oktyabrskiy District Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan 01/07/2010   Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan 19/10/2010   Convicted of attempted drug dealing and unlawful storage of drugs without the intention of their sale   Mrs S.   53385/10 28/07/2010   Aleksey Anatolyevich USHANOV   15/10/1989 Sterlitamak   Andrey Anatolyevich USHANOV Orenburg Regional Court 15/10/2009     Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 04/02/2010   Convicted of infliction of grievous bodily injuries that led to the victim’s death in conspiracy Mr Ch., Mr D.   56603/10 07/09/2010   Vladimir Alekseyevich SHCHERBATYKH   09/10/1978 Moscow   Mikhail Ivanovich TREPASHKIN Noginskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region 17/02/2010   Moscow Regional Court 06/04/2010   Convicted of murder     Mr Ch.   56845/10 10/09/2010   Andrey Alekseyevich YEGOROV   24/09/1968 Volgograd   Yelena Aleksandrovna BALAKIR Voroshilovskiy District Court of Volgograd 29/04/2010   Volgograd Regional Court 16/08/2010       Convicted of aggravated assault and extortion in conspiracy   Mr S., Mrs S., Mr T.   58853/10 07/09/2010   Valeriy Vladimirovich BELANOV   12/11/1960 Moscow   Mikhail Ivanovich TREPASHKIN Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow 21/06/2010   Moscow City Court 23/08/2010   Convicted of fraud     Mr Ch., Mr Chur., Mrs   I., Mrs   R.