CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 décembre 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 } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s8B7697D0 { width:20.77pt; display:inline-block } .s4024CB39 { width:139.08pt; display:inline-block } .sF7DC134C { width:39.46pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 60123/10 Yuriy Vladimirovich SOKOLOV against Russia and 15 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18   December 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Stephen Phillips, 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 2009 and 2011 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. 10.     Mrs Zhukova (application no. 36038/11) complained in addition under Articles 3, 5 § 1 (c), 5 § 2, 5 § 4, 6 § 1, 6 § 3 (b), 6 § 2, 13 of the Convention. THE LAW 11.     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. 12.     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. 13.     Certain applicants disagreed, while the others did not provide specific arguments. 14.     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, as well as certain other complaints of Mrs   Zhukova (application no. 36038/11) under Articles 3, 5 § 1 (c), 5 § 2, 5 § 4, 6 § 1, 6   §   3 (b), 6 § 2, 13 of the Convention, which were not communicated to the Government, 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 24 January 2019.   Stephen Phillips   Alena Poláčková   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 Convicted of Witness absent from trial     60123/10 07/09/2010   Yuriy Vladimirovich SOKOLOV   16/02/1963 Moscow   Oksana Vladimirovna PREOBRAZHENSKAYA Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow 11/03/2011   Moscow City Court 05/05/2010   Convicted of robbery in conspiracy   Mr I., Mr S.     61877/10 02/10/2010   Yevgeniy Yevgenyevich CHUGRIN   14/02/1982 Tambov   Vladimir Yuryevich ZYABLOV   09/10/1979 Tambov Military Court   of the Tambov Garrison 19/04/2010   Military Court of the Moscow Command 23/07/2010   Convicted of abuse of power in conspiracy   Mr B., Mr A.     71574/10 17/11/2010   Georgiy Leonidovich BALDIN   21/06/1978 Spassk-Dalniy   Mayya Daniyalovna TOPOLSKOVA   Ussuriyskiy Town Court of the Primorsk Region 19/06/2009   Primorsk Regional Court 01/03/2010   Convicted of murder   Mrs P., Mr Z., Mr K.     73033/10 01/12/2010   Yevgeniy Viktorovich GRAKOVICH   14/06/1955 Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk     South-Sakhalinskiy Town Court 09/03/2010   Sakhalinsk Regional Court 09/06/2010   Convicted of abuse of power   Mr K., Mrs A.     1093/11 12/12/2010   Olga Petrovna KONYAKHINA   26/11/1962 Moscow   Valeriy Ivanovich PRILEPSKIY Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow 29/06/2010   Moscow City Court 13/09/2010   Convicted of multiple counts of fraud   Mrs E.-R., Mr N.     1111/11 22/04/2011   Yevgeniy Nikolayevich ROZENTSVEYG   30/01/1981 Belorechenskiy     Cheremkhovskiy Town Court of the Irkutsk Region 22/10/2010   Irkutsk Regional Court 20/04/2011   Convicted of assault and robbery Mr A.     12601/11 27/01/2011   Igor Vladimirovich NIKITIN   29/03/1989 Tsivilsk   Novocheboksarskiy Town Court of the Chuvash Republic 16/07/2010   Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic 28/09/2010   Convicted of assault of a group of people in conspiracy   Mr S., Mrs S.         14030/11 15/02/2011   Yelena Vyacheslavovna MASHKOVSKAYA   16/06/1976 Novorossiysk   Yevgeniy Anatolyevich LEVIN Justice of the Peace of the 242nd Court Circuit of the Prikubanskiy District of Krasnodar 17/08/2010   Prikubanskiy District Court of Krasnodar 17/11/2010   Krasnodar Regional Court 15/12/2010   Convicted of failure to perform a duty of bringing up a minor   Mr S., Mrs L., Mrs Sh.         16036/11 15/02/2011   Sergey Gennadyevich ORLOV   06/07/1983 Komsomolskoye   Komsomolskiy District Court of the Chuvash Republic 13/12/2010   Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic 10/03/2011   Convicted of extortion and assault   Mr G.   25798/11 21/03/2011   Yevgeniy Valeryevich SHEREMETYEV   20/11/1969 Moscow   Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow 08/06/2010   The Moscow City Court 01/11/2010   Convicted of sexual assault and threat of murder   Mr Sh., Mr K., Mr R., Mr F.   26088/11 17/03/2011   Aleksey Aleksandrovich NOVIKOV   20/07/1977 Dimitrovgrad   Dimitrovgradskiy Town Court of the Ulyanovsk Region 10/08/2010   Ulyanovsk Regional Court 29/09/2010   Convicted of attempted drug dealing in conspiracy   Mr K.   36038/11 06/05/2011   Larisa Nikolayevna ZHUKOVA   03/03/1965 Yekaterinburg   Justice of the Peace   of the 7th Court Circuit of the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District of the Yekaterinburg 03/04/2009   Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg 14/10/2010   Sverdlovsk Regional Court 08/06/2011   Convicted of intentional infliction of light injuries   Mr S.   74784/11 17/11/2011   Ruslan Naibsoltanovich AKHYADOV   19/09/1968 Kushchevskaya   Tatyana Sergeyevna MOYSHINA Kushchevskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region 26/01/2011   Krasnodar Regional Court 18/05/2011   Convicted of attempted fraud in conspiracy   Mr M.   74794/11 17/11/2011   Khadishat Shamkhanovna AKHYADOVA   17/03/1965 Kushchevskaya   Tatyana Sergeyevna MOYSHINA Kushchevskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region 26/01/2011   Krasnodar Regional Court 18/05/2011   Convicted of attempted fraud in conspiracy   Mr M.   75911/11 03/11/2011   Ararat Rafikovich APINYAN   13/06/1967 Novosibirsk   Oktaybrskiy District Court of Novosibirsk 20/12/2010   Novosibirsk Regional Court 11/05/2011   Convicted of abuse of power with use of violence in conspiracy   Mr S.   76399/11 30/09/2011   Sergey Aleksandrovich MONETOV   29/06/1975 Sheksna   Vytegorskiy District Court of the Vologda Region 18/02/2011   Vologda Regional Court 07/04/2011   Convicted of infliction of grievous bodily injuries that led to the victim’s death and battery   Mr B., Mr N.