CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 mars 2019

.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 } .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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sB4F4F07F { height:95.15pt } .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. 21891/12 Igor Ivanovich BOYKO against Russia and 8 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5   March 2019 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 2006 and 2013 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. 10.     The applicants, except for Ms   Bashirova and Mr   Krasnov (applications nos.   50072/12 and 73008/12 respectively), also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings, assessment of evidence and refusal to admit certain materials into evidence. 11.     Mr Boyko (application no. 21891/12) complained in addition under Articles 13 and 18 of the Convention. 12.     Ms Ilyicheva (application no. 60261/12) further complained under Article 3 of the Convention. THE LAW 13.     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. 14.     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. 15.     Certain applicants disagreed, while the others did not provide specific arguments. 16.     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 the accessory complaints of all the applicants except for Ms   Bashirova and Mr   Krasnov (applications nos.   50072/12 and 73008/12 respectively) under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, complaints of Mr Boyko (application no.   21891/12) under Articles 13 and 18 of the Convention and complaint of Ms Ilyicheva (application no. 60261/12) under Article 3 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 28 March 2019.   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/cassation courts’ judgments Witness absent from trial     21891/12 10/04/2012 Igor Ivanovich BOYKO   26/03/1964 Magadan     Magadan Town Court of the Magadan Region 09/08/2011   Magadan Regional Court 26/10/2011   Convicted of stealing firearms by a group of persons on preliminary collusion, using official position Mr F., Mr Shch., Mr G., Mr M., Mr Kh., Mr Zh.     26138/12 03/09/2012 Nikolay Gennadyevich BESPALOV   28/06/1978 Omsk   Self-representation Kaliniskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk 27/12/2011   Chelyabink Regional Court 23/03/2012   Convicted of attempted drug dealing in large quantities, preparation for dealing of psychotropic substances in especially large quantities Mr Ts.     30730/12 28/09/2006 Vitaliy Vladimirovich OCHIROV   16/08/1964 Ulan-Ude, Buryatia Republic   Yekaterina Viktorovna Yefremova Gusinoozersk Town Court of the Buryatia Republic 23/06/2006   Supreme Court of the Buryatia Republic 07/09/2006   Convicted of murder   Mr K.     50072/12 07/08/2012 Ruzaliya Gennadyevna BASHIROVA   19/11/1988 Narimanov, Astrakhan Region   Aleksandr Anatolyevich Anokhin Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan 16/07/2012   Astrakhan Regional Court 06/09/2012   Convicted of attempted drug dealing Mr I., Mr A.     56948/12 12/07/2012 Valeriy Ivanovich KHONIN   22/07/1963 Kamyshin, Volgograd Region   Aleksandr Viktorovich Shestakov Kamyshin Town Court of the Volgograd Region 19/04/2012   Volgograd Regional Court 25/06/2012   Convicted of attempted drug dealing in large quantities by an organised group     Mr B., Ms K., Mr Po., Mr Pet., Mr Pi., Mr S., Ms B., Ms Sh., Mr Pekh., “Zakupshchik”     56982/12 10/08/2012 Marina Dmitriyevna PYAZHEVA   23/07/1978 Kamyshin, Volgograd Region       Kamyshin Town Court of the Volgograd Region 19/04/2012   Volgograd Regional Court 25/06/2012   Convicted of attempted drug dealing in large quantities by an organised group     Mr B., Ms K., Mr Po., Mr Pet., Mr Pi., Mr S., Ms B., Ms Sh., Mr Pekh., “Zakupshchik”     60261/12 17/08/2012 Inna Viktorovna ILYICHEVA   31/08/1976 Gornoye, Primorskiy Region   Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok, Primorsk Region 03/08/2012   Primorsk Regional Court 31/01/2013   Convicted of inter alia drug dealing in large quantities by a group of persons on preliminary collusion Ms K.     63826/12 26/09/2012 Vladimir Stanislavovich BABUSHKIN   25/07/1961 Khabarovsk   Sergey Yuryevich Popov Tsentralniy District Court of Khabarovsk 13/06/2012   Khabarovsk Regional Court 30/08/2012   Convicted of illegal enterprise connected with deriving profits on a large scale Mr K., Ms K., Mr A., Mr L., Mr T.     73008/12 16/10/2012 Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich KRASNOV   03/02/1973 Uptar, Magadan Region   Aleksandr Svyatoslavovich Osokin Leninskiy District Court of Cheboksary, Republic of Chuvashiya 23/11/2011   Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashiya 17/04/2012   Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashiya 21/09/2012   Convicted of inter alia nineteen counts of extortion by an organized group, fraud with infliction of significant damage to a citizen by an organized group   “Kharitonov”, “Sidorov”, “Yefremov”, Ms M., Mr Sh., Mr Kur., Mr Kon., Mr May., Mr Ye., Ms Kh., Ms S., Mr A.V., Ms K., Ms B., Mr G., Mr T., Mr Maks., Mr Mikh., Mr Maku., Mr I.Yu., Mr Mid., Ms G., Mr D.