CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 avril 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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s93654821 { width:16.99pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s2A983CA3 { margin-top:30pt; 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 } .s86FCE089 { height:76.65pt } .s8D80EEEC { width:2.98pt; display:inline-block } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s38729B7C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 2075/14 Maksim Sergeyevich SOLOVJOV against Russia and 10 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30   April 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   Solovjov who is a Lithuanian   national, 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 2016 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 Solovjov, Mr   Zemchenkov, Mr   Kovalenko, Mr   Edilkhanov and Mr   Ryabov (applications nos. 2075/14, 3503/14, 51471/14, 53388/14   and 61609/14 respectively), also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings, assessment of evidence and in the case of Mr Ovchenkov (application no.   52996/14) about the refusal to admit certain materials into evidence. 11.     Mr   Zemchenkov and Mr Kurashov (applications nos.   3503/14 and 35232/14 respectively) complained in addition under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 12.     Mr   Kovalenko (application no. 51471/14) further complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b), (d) and Article 7 of the Convention. 13.     Mr   Tomilin (application no. 61461/14) complained also under Article   5   §   1   (a) and Article 6 §   1 of the Convention. 14.     Mr   Ryabov (application no. 61609/14) complained under Article   7   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 Solovjov, Mr   Zemchenkov, Mr   Kovalenko, Mr   Edilkhanov and Mr   Ryabov (applications nos. 2075/14, 3503/14, 51471/14, 53388/14   and 61609/14 respectively) under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, complaints of Mr Zemchenkov and Mr Kurashov (applications nos. 3503/14 and 35232/14 respectively) under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, complaints of Mr Kovalenko (application no. 51471/14) under Article 6   §§   1 and 3   (b),   (d) and Article   7 of the Convention, complaints of Mr Tomilin (application no. 61461/14) under Article   5   §   1   (a) and Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, complaints of Mr Ryabov (application no.   61609/14) under Article   7 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 23 May 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     2075/14 27/12/2013 Maksim Sergeyevich SOLOVJOV   03/10/1992 Belavino, Moscow Region Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow 06/08/2013   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 17/03/2014   Convicted of attempted drug trafficking Ms N.     3503/14 18/03/2014 Valeriy Nikolayevich ZEMCHENKOV   29/05/1969 Lepley, Republic of Mordovia     Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Orel 26/06/2013   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 18/08/2014   Convicted of attempted drug trafficking by an organized group on a large scale, preparation to drug trafficking by an organized group on an especially large scale, abuse of office Ms Sh., Ms N., Mr M., Mr K.     33721/14 28/04/2014 Vadim Vsevolodovich GULTSEV   14/01/1956 Moscow     Voroshilovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don 28/12/2012   Rostov Regional Court 12/11/2013   Convicted of attempted drug trafficking on a large scale by an organized group (3 episodes), drug trafficking on a large scale by an organized group, preparation for drug trafficking on an especially large scale by an organized group Ms P.     35232/14 28/04/2014 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KURASHOV   13/06/1992 Barashevo, Republic of Mordovia   Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov Pushkino Town Court of the Moscow Region 24/09/2013   Moscow Regional Court 14/11/2013   Convicted of murder Mr D.     35378/14 25/12/2014 Zaur Ilgarovich NAZAROV   05/01/1987 Rybinsk, Yaroslavl Region   Aleksey Viktorovich Chichagov Leninskiy District Court of Yaroslavl 15/10/2013   Yaroslavl Regional Court 16/10/2014   Convicted of psychotropic substance and drug trafficking (7 episodes)   Ms S.     51471/14 18/05/2014 Oleg Valeryevich KOVALENKO   12/08/1973 Slavyanovka, Kaliningrad Region Sovetskiy Town Court 09/09/2013   Kaliningrad Regional Court 11/03/2014   Convicted of theft with the use of violence not endangering health, attempted theft with the use of violence not endangering health, theft Ms Sh.     52996/14 23/08/2014 Yuriy Yuryevich OVCHENKOV   12/09/1958 Dedenevo, Moscow Region   Oleg Olegovich Anishchik Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow 29/07/2013   Moscow City Court 24/02/2014   Convicted of attempted swindling by a group of persons on preliminary collusion on a large scale   Mr Ya., Mr K.     53388/14 04/02/2015 Ali Sultanovich EDILKHANOV   19/05/1973 Moscow   Roza Saidovna Magomedova Kuntsevskiy District Court of Moscow 29/04/2014   Moscow City Court 18/12/2014   Convicted of willful infliction of grievous bodily harm endangering life and health   Mr D.Z., Mr K.Z., Mr A., Mr O., Mr I., Ms R., Mr S.     61461/14 23/08/2014 Vladimir Vladimirovich TOMILIN   18/10/1989 Plavsk, Tula Region   Aleksandr Sergeyevich Matveychik Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow 25/09/2015   Moscow City Court 28/04/2016   Convicted of preparation for drug trafficking on a large scale   Mr B.   61609/14 06/08/2014 Igor Nikolayevich RYABOV   23/06/1974 Krylovskaya, Krasnodar Region Taganskiy District Court of Moscow 31/10/2013   Moscow City Court 02/04/2014   Convicted of swindling by an organized group (9 episodes) Mr K., Mr S., Mr Zh., Mr E., Mr Kh., Mr K.   77048/14 03/12/2014 Oleg Uruzmagovich TSIBIROV   27/04/1983 Moscow Tverskoy District Court of Moscow 17/03/2014   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 23/12/2014   Convicted of attempted drug trafficking, attempted drug trafficking on large scale and unlawful storage of drugs on a large scale Ms S., Ms Y.