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 } .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. 27870/12 Tatyana Borisovna MIKHAYLOVA against Russia and 9 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 Khashimov who is Azerbaijani, 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 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, except for in application no. 22877/13 Seleverstov v. Russia where the applicant failed to lodge an appeal against the trial court’s judgment.   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   Seleverstov and Mr   Borsov (applications nos.   22877/13 and 39177/13 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.     Ms   Mikhaylova and Ms   Gorbaneva (applications nos.   27870/12 and 50665/12 respectively) complained in addition under Article   6   §§   1 and 3   (d) of the Convention about the domestic courts’ refusals to summon and question the witnesses for defence. 12.     Mr Ananenko (application no. 2935/13) further complained under Articles   3 and 5   §§   1 and   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 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. In respect of Mr   Seleverstov (application no. 22877/13) the Government also argued that the applicant did not appeal against his conviction. 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, except for application no.   22877/13 Seleverstov v.   Russia which is out on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as well as the accessory complaints of all the applicants except for Mr   Seleverstov and Mr   Borsov (applications nos.   22877/13 and 39177/13 respectively) under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, complaints of Ms   Mikhaylova and Ms   Gorbaneva (applications nos. 27870/12 and 50665/12 respectively) under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention and complaints of Mr   Ananenko (application no.   2935/13) under Articles 3 and 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, which were not communicated to the Government, and thus must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   1, 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     27870/12 12/04/2012 Tatyana Borisovna MIKHAYLOVA   25/01/1959 Moscow   Aleksandr Valeryevich Tregubov     Perovskiy District Court of Moscow 26/08/2011   Moscow City Court 21/11/2011   Convicted of swindling with use of an official position on a large scale in excess of official powers     Ms S., Ms L., Ms K., Ms Sav.,   Mr K., Ms D., Ms R., Ms Z., Ms Zel., Ms   Sem.,   Ms B., Ms A., Ms Sam., Mr Kuz.     50665/12 01/08/2012 Tatyana Yevgenyevna GORBANEVA   18/08/1966 Seversk, Tomsk Region   Lyubov Germanovna Golysheva Justice of the Peace of Circuit no. 1 of the Sovetskiy District of Tomsk 24/10/2011   Tomsk Regional Court 09/02/2012   Convicted of illegal transfer of inventoried and seized property by a person entrusted with this property Mr B.     2935/13 04/12/2012 Aleksandr Anatolyevich ANANENKO   01/04/1957 Abinsk, Krasnodar Region   Yelena Vladimirovna Korneva Abinsk District Court of the Krasnodar Region 16/09/2008   Krasnodar Regional Court 06/06/2012   Convicted of evasion of corporate tax payment on a large scale by non ‑ submitting tax declarations or other documents and by including fraudulent data in tax declarations, concealment of monetary funds payable as tax exaction on a large scale, attempted fraud on especially large scale Ms N., Mr R., Mr K., Mr L.     22877/13 13/02/2013 Valeriy Alekseyevich SELEVERSTOV   05/11/1983 Lepley, Republic of Mordovia   Pavel Vasilyevich Astakhov Lyublinsky District Court of Moscow 22/05/2014   Convicted of abduction by a group of persons in preliminary collusion     Mr Kh.     29884/13 10/09/2013 Andrey Aleksandrovich PYSTOGOV   13/08/1989 Nizhniy Tagil, Sverdlovsk Region   Inna Valeryevna Zhuravleva Gayinskiy District Court of the Perm Region 23/11/2012   Perm Regional Court 12/03/2013   Convicted of illegal deprivation of liberty by a group of persons in preliminary collusion, battery, robbery with the use of violence endangering life and health and with the use of objects used as weapon,   unlawful entry into a home Ms I., Ms K.     31216/13 16/04/2013 Namig Shakhin Ogly KHASHIMOV   07/06/1986 Belaya Gora, Tula Region   Igor Vladimirovich Kostritsa Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow 29/08/2012   Moscow City Court 17/10/2012   Convicted of robbery committed with the threat of using violence which threatened human life and health, with the use of objects used as weapons, with illegal entry into a home in an especially large scale Ms A.     39177/13 06/04/2013 Mikhail Alekseyevich BORSOV   18/11/1991 Moscow   Lyubertsy Town Court of the Moscow Region 14/08/2012   Moscow Region Court 25/12/2012   Convicted of theft by a group of persons in preliminary collusion on especially large scale, and of involvement of an under-age individual in committing a grave offence by threats and with use of violence and threats of violence Mr G.     60378/13 02/09/2013 Igor Vladimirovich ZAGOSKIN   27/02/1986 Perm   Oleg Vyacheslavovich Pakhomov Gayinskiy District Court of the Perm Region 23/11/2012   Perm Regional Court 12/03/2013   Convicted of intentional infliction of a grave injury hazardous for human life which involved the death of the victim by negligence, illegal deprivation of liberty by a group of persons in preliminary collusion, battery, unlawful entry into a home Ms I.     73272/13 26/10/2013 Alisher Mukhtarzhanovich SABITALIYEV   03/11/1975 Yaroslavl   Yuriy Aleksandrovich Melnikov Taganskiy District Court of Moscow 22/04/2013   Moscow City Court 08/10/2013   Convicted of robbery by a group of persons in preliminary collusion with the use of violence not endangering life and health Mr P.     76629/13 20/11/2013 Sergey Ilyich LIDYAYEV   10/08/1987 Lesnoy, Kirov Region   Oleg Olegovich Anishchik Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow 19/02/2013   Moscow City Court 22/05/2013   Convicted of robbery by a group of persons in preliminary collusion with the use of violence endangering life and health Mr M.