CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 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 } .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 } .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 } .s9AF624F5 { height:2.85pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 23686/13 Sergey Valeriyevich KOZLOV against Russia and 10 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19   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, except for Mr Shirinov who is a national of   Tajikistan, 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 2012 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. 10.     The applicants, except for Mr Kozlov, Ms Shlyapkina, Mr   Kufayev, Mr   Chesnokov, Mr   Dubinin and Mr   Shcherbatykh (applications nos.   23686/13, 52635/13, 15803/14, 32501/14, 45811/14 and 56742/14 respectively), also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings and assessment of evidence. 11.     Ms   Shlyapkina (application no. 52635/13) complained in addition under Articles   7 and 13 of the Convention. 12.     Mr Gorbatyuk and Mr Vinogradov (applications nos. 65765/13 and 77434/13 respectively) further complained under Article 3 of the Convention. 13.     Mr   Dubinin (application no. 45811/14) complained also under Article   6   §   2 of the Convention. 14.     Mr   Gostev (application no. 60644/14) complained under Article   7   §   2 of the Convention. THE LAW 15.     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. 16.     The respondent Government in their observations argued that the 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. 17.     Certain applicants disagreed, while the others did not provide specific arguments. 18.     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 Mr Kozlov, Ms Shlyapkina, Mr   Kufayev, Mr   Chesnokov, Mr   Dubinin and Mr   Shcherbatykh (applications nos.   23686/13, 52635/13, 15803/14, 32501/14, 45811/14 and 56742/14 respectively) under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, complaints of Ms   Shlyapkina (application no. 52635/13) under Articles   7 and 13 of the Convention, complaints of Mr   Gorbatyuk and Mr   Vinogradov (applications nos.   65765/13 and 77434/13 respectively) under Article 3 of the Convention, complaint of     Mr   Dubinin (application no. 45811/14) under Article   6   §   2 of the Convention and that of Mr   Gostev (application no.   60644/14) under Article   7   §   2 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 11 April 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     23686/13 12/02/2013 Sergey Valeriyevich KOZLOV   Potma, Republic of Mordovia 19/06/1980   Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Plodukhin Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow 18/06/2012   Moscow City Court 31/10/2012   Convicted of murder Mr P., Ms P., Mr S., Ms Yu., Ms Z., Mr R.     24356/13 07/03/2013     Nasimzhon Nodirovich SHIRINOV   31/07/1975 Startsevo, Krasnoyarsk Region   Svetlana Nikolayevna Rzhepko Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 03/09/2012   Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 13/12/2012   Convicted of attempted drug dealing on large scale, attempted drug dealing, attempted drug dealing on especially large scale Mr “Prokhorov”, Mr B.     52635/13 01/08/2013 Marina Anatolyevna SHLYAPKINA   23/10/1986 Ulyanovsk   Yekaterina Alekseyevna Fetisova   Leninskiy District Court of Ulyanovsk, Ulyanovsk Region 29/11/2012   Ulyanovsk Regional Court 06/02/2013   Ulyanovsk Regional Court 14/02/2014   Convicted of swindling through an official position on a large scale Mr S.     65765/13 26/09/2013 Aleksandr Fedorovich GORBATYUK   14/02/1978 Mikhaylovka, Primorskiy Region   Aleksey Sergeyevich Arkhipov     Mikhaylovka District Court of the Primorskiy Region 05/07/2012   Primorskiy Regional Court 27/03/2013   Convicted of extortion by a group of persons in preliminary collusion (3   episodes) and of preparation for extortion by a group of persons in preliminary collusion Mr D., Mr S.     77434/13 14/11/2013 Konstantin Konstantinovich VINOGRADOV   12/05/1982 Armarvir, Krasnodar Region   Irina Vladimirovna Khrunova   Tsentralniy District Court of Sochi, Krasnodar Region 18/03/2013   Krasnodar Regional Court 15/05/2013   Convicted for attempted drug trafficking on especially large scale Mrs Z.     15803/14 12/02/2014   Igor Aleksandrovich KUFAYEV   03/07/1969 Barnaul   Grigoriy Gennadyevich Akimov   Tsentralniy District Court of Barnaul, Altay Region 23/05/2013   Altay Regional Court 20/09/2013   Convicted of swindling (2   episodes) by a group of persons on preliminary collusion on especially large scale through official position, money laundering (2 episodes) on a large scale through an official position where one of the episodes was committed by a group of persons on preliminary collusion Mr Ch.     32501/14 07/12/2014 Yanis Aleksandrovich CHESNOKOV   22/06/1985 Karymskoye, Zabaykalskiy Region   Mikhaylovskiy District Court of the Amur Region 14/08/2013   Amursk Regional Court 24/09/2014   Convicted of attempted dealing of psychotropic substances by an organized group in large quantities (3 episodes), attempted drug dealing by an organized group in large quantities (2 episodes), drug dealing in especially large quantities (2 episodes), unlawful storage of drugs without the purpose of trafficking in especially large quantities Mr P.     33551/14 07/04/2014 Yuriy Sergeyevich GUROV   Moscow 02/05/1976   Aleksandr Stepanovich Bukharets Izmailovskiy District Court of Moscow 16/07/2013   Moscow City Court 07/10/2013   Convicted of attempted drug dealing by a group of persons on preliminary collusion   Ms K.     45811/14 16/06/2014 Maksim Andreyevich DUBININ   17/04/1973 Ryazan   Erika Nikolayevna Barsukova Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow 17/09/2013   Moscow City Court 22/04/2014   Convicted of attempted drug dealing Mr K.   56742/14 24/09/2014 Viktor Vasilyevich SHCHERBATYKH   03/12/1978 Sorda, Kirov Region     Vyazniki Town Court of the Vladimir Region 21/10/2013   Vladimir Regional Court 27/03/2014   Convicted of murder Mr K.   60644/14 28/07/2014 Anatoliy Vasilyevich GOSTEV   28/03/1985 Novocherkassk       Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don 27/11/2013   Rostov Regional Court 05/02/2014   Convicted of burglary with unlawful entry to premises and of burglary with unlawful entry to premises on a large scale Mr E.