CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 juin 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sE08B2FE0 { height:132.95pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 51498/12 Aleksey Germanovich KOLTSOV against Russia and 8 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 4   June 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, 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 2010 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 Tomochinskiy, Mr Darmayev and Mr   Kuklin (applications nos.   30124/14, 40898/14 and 78493/14 respectively), also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings, assessment of evidence and in the cases of Mr Koltsov, Mr Gazimamedov, Mr Soltanov and Mr   Nazarov (applications   nos.   51498/12, 69755/12, 25124/14 and 31933/14 respectively) also about the refusal to admit certain materials into evidence. 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 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. 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 the accessory complaints of all the applicants except for Mr Tomochinskiy, Mr Darmayev and Mr Kuklin (applications nos. 30124/14, 40898/14 and 78493/14 respectively), under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, complaint of Mr Smurov (application   no.   1997/14) under Article 6 § 3 (d) 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 27 June 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/cassation courts’ judgments Witness absent from trial     51498/12 16/07/2012 Aleksey Germanovich KOLTSOV   11/05/1982 Cheboksary       Yadrinskiy District Court of the Chuvash Republic 28/12/2011   Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic 06/03/2012   Convicted of rape by a group of persons in preliminary collusion and threats to kill Ms M.         69755/12 10/12/2010 Isa Usamovich GAZIMAMEDOV   31/05/1971 Oktyabrskoye, Chechen Republic   Dokka Saydaminovich Itslayev       Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic 24/02/2010   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 10/06/2010   Convicted of attempted murder of military servicemen aimed at obstruction of legitimate activity of public security maintenance Mr Bay., Mr D., Mr Ko., Mr I., Mr P., Mr V., Mr Bab., Mr Ku.,   Ms N., Mr Sh.,   Mr K.,   Mr U., Mr Pt., Ms Ye.M., Mr O., Mr Pl., Ms Yu., Mr Ch., Mr N., Mr Z., Ms V.M.     36316/13 29/04/2013 Sergey Ivanovich POPOV   28/06/1976 Krasnoyarsk   Valentina Aleksandrovna Bokareva   Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 27/09/2012   Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 29/11/2012   Convicted of robbery with the use of violence not endangering life and health Mr Sh.     1997/14 17/12/2013 Igor Alekseyevich SMUROV   04/07/1991 Donskoy, Tula Region   Yuliya Aleksandrovna Kolosovskaya Kuntsevskiy District Court of Moscow 15/05/2013   Moscow City Court 29/07/2013   Convicted of attempted trafficking of psychotropic substances on a large scale Mrs Iz., Mr B., Mrs V., Mr S., Mrs K., Mr V.     25124/14 05/03/2014 Dagir Abakarovich SOLTANOV   02/07/1983 Makhachkala, Dagestan Republic   Khalimat Shapigadzhiyevna Aligadzhiyeva Kumtorkalinskiy District Court of the Dagestan Republic 06/06/2013   Supreme Court of Russian Federation 01/04/2014   Convicted of attempted drug trafficking on an especially large scale Mr R.     30124/14 20/06/2014 Sergey Anatolyevich TOMOCHINSKIY   28/05/1987 Biysk, Altay Region     Gorno-Altayskiy Town Court of the Republic of Altay 26/07/2013   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 29/04/2014   Convicted of attempted drug trafficking by a group of persons on preliminary collusion on a large scale, attempted drug trafficking Mr I.     31933/14 16/04/2014 Vsevolod Vladimirovich NAZAROV   06/01/1967 Yaroslavl   Igor Borisovich Bushmanov   Khamovnitcheskiy District Court of Moscow 19/04/2013   Moscow City Court 07/03/2014   Convicted of swindling by a group of persons on preliminary collusion on an especially large scale Mrs Yak.,   Mrs Pch.,   Mr Kor.,   Mrs Va.,   Mrs Ag., Mrs Scher.,   Mrs L.,   Mrs N.,   Mrs F.,   Mr P.,   Mrs Ul.,   Mrs Abr.,   Mr Abr., Mrs M.     40898/14 12/05/2014 Boris Khaychiyevich DARMAYEV   01/02/1969 Tsagan-Aman, Republic of Kalmykiya   Karmen Erdniyevna Pavlova Yenotaevka District Court of the Astrakhan Region 30/10/2013   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 28/05/2014   Convicted of abuse of office Mr Kh., Mr Kur., Mr An.     78493/14 08/12/2014 Vladimir Sergeyevich KUKLIN   12/06/1946 Moscow     Tverskoy District Court of Moscow 24/02/2014   Moscow City Court 19/06/2014   Convicted of attempted drug trafficking by an organized group on a large scale Mr G., Mr K.