CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6F7FC1B9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA2D73760 { width:187.93pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 12348/05 Andrey Aleksandrovich ARKHANGELSKIY against Russia and 13 other applications (see appended list) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24   September 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. On various dates between 2004 and 2015 the applicants were criminally prosecuted and convicted of various offences under the Russian legislation in force. The particulars of the relevant domestic proceedings are presented in the appended table. COMPLAINTS 4.     The applicants complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that they were not provided an opportunity to examine during trial the prosecution witnesses and/or the witnesses on their behalf. They further submitted accessory complaints under Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. THE LAW 5.     The Court considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications listed in the appended table should be joined. 6.     The respondent Government in their observations argued that applicants had had fair hearings in the determination of the criminal charges against them in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The applicants in their observations disagreed and maintained their complaints. 7.     The Court, having regard in particular to the judgments in the cases Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, 18 December 2018, Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, ECHR 2015, Zadumov v.   Russia , no. 2257/12, 12 December 2017, Shumeyev and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 29474/07 and 3 others, 22 September 2015, Belaousof and Others v. Greece , no. 66296/01, 27 May 2004, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, ECHR 1999 II, Sadak and Others v. Turkey (no. 1), nos. 29900/96 and 3 others, ECHR 2001 VIII, Yanechko v. Russia (dec.), no. 46603/11, 23 October 2018, has carefully examined the applications listed in the appended table, the arguments and the documents submitted by the parties. 8.     Having regard to all of the available material the Court concludes that the applicants’ complaints are inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 1 and 3 (a) of the Convention and therefore must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 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 17 October 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 courts’ judgments Convicted of Communicated issue under Article 6 of the Convention     12348/05   21/03/2005 Andrey Aleksandrovich ARKHANGELSKIY   14/06/1972 Kharp   Purovskiy District Court of the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region 11/06/2004   Yamalo-Nenetskiy Regional Court 28/10/2004   Presidium of the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Regional Court 21/07/2010   Purovskiy District Court of the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region 11/04/2011   Convicted of murder and theft Absent prosecution witness Mr N.   Lack of legal assistance when making statement of surrender with confession     24297/06   26/04/2006 Sergey Konstantinovich GORBUNOV   14/08/1966 Vologda   Olga DRUZHKOVA Vologodskiy Town Court of the Vologda Region 07/02/2006   Vologda Regional Court 21/03/2006   Convicted of forcible assertion of right in conspiracy Absent prosecution witness Mr Sh.   Reclassification of charges by the appeal court     12913/07   13/02/2007 Ayrat Pikovich CHEMOLTYNOV 07/09/1971 Omsk   Yekaterina Viktorovna YEFREMOVA       Kirovskiy District Court of Omsk 02/08/2006   Omsk Regional Court 28/09/2006   Convicted of infliction of grievous bodily injuries that led to the victim’s death and light bodily injuries to other victims in conspiracy Absent prosecution witnesses Mr Ye., Mr L.     36776/08   24/06/2008 Sergey Nikolayevich KUZNETSOV   05/07/1980 Saint-Petersburg   Vasiliy Gennadyevich SHABANOV   Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg 17/03/2008   St Petersburg City Court 27/05/2008   Convicted of unlawful storage of drugs without the intention of their sale Absent attesting witness   Mr V.     43546/09   20/04/2009 Vyacheslav Sergeyevich BYKOVSKIY   29/03/1958 Naryshkino   Orel Regional Court 19/06/2008   Supreme Court of Russia 19/11/2008   Convicted of participation in a criminal gang and multiple counts (around 30) of assaulted robbery in conspiracy Absent prosecution witnesses Mrs P., Mr K.     53588/09   19/12/2009 Denis Aleksandrovich KOKOSHNIKOV   17/10/1975 Tver Moscovskiy District Court of Tver 10/05/2012   Tver Regional Court 11/07/2012   Convicted of infliction of grievous bodily injuries that led to the victim’s death Absent prosecution witness Mrs R.     67695/09   07/12/2009 Sergey Leonidovich KAZNOV   03/02/1986 Norilsk   Anna Vladimirovna BOYCHENYUK   Norilsk Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region 03/04/2009   Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 22/09/2009   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 28/05/2013   Convicted of several counts of drug dealing in conspiracy Absent prosecution witnesses Mr T., Mr F., Mr R., Mr M., Mr S.     22830/10   21/06/2010 Aleksey Vitalyevich BARANOV   10/07/1969 Moscow   Oksana Vladimirovna PREOBRAZHENSKAYA Taganskiy District Court of Moscow 21/07/2009   Moscow City Court 13/01/2010   Convicted of abuse of power and attempted fraud in conspiracy Absent prosecution witness Mr B     69828/10 06/11/2010       Sergey Nikolayevich BRYZGALOV   11/06/1974 Pangody   Yekaterina Viktorovna YEFREMOVA   Oktaybrskiy District Court of Krasnodar 14/05/2010   Krasnodar Regional Court 16/06/2010   Convicted of attempted drug dealing Absent prosecution witness Mr I.   71069/10   24/11/2010 Vladimir Petrovich LYSENKO   17/08/1950 Moscow   Igor Borisovich BUSHMANOV Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow 05/03/2010   Moscow City Court 26/05/2010   Convicted of attempted fraud in conspiracy Refusal to call a defence witness Mr G.   35443/11   25/05/2011 Ramil Ayupovich AYDERKHANOV   13/02/1969 Koryazhma   Olga Yuryevna MISHCHENKO Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow 22/09/2010   Moscow City Court 01/12/2010   Convicted of sexual assault, battery and threat of murder Absent prosecution witness Ms G.   36511/11   07/04/2011 Aleksandr Vitalyevich SHAMAN   25/12/1985 St Petersburg   Ruslan Vitalyevich OREKHOV   Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow 08/07/2010   Moscow City Court 13/10/2010   Convicted of fraud in conspiracy Absent prosecution witnesses Ms D., Ms R., Ms K., Mr P., Mr K., Ms G.   17033/15   09/02/2015 Konstantin Anatolyevich GROMOV   10/06/1977 Kaliningrad Moscow District Court of Kaliningrad 17/10/2014   Kaliningrad Reginal Court 19/02/2015   Convicted of infliction of grievous bodily injuries Absent prosecution witnesses Mr K. and Mr S.   Refusal to call a forensic expert Mr Sh. for examination at trial     30923/15   22/06/2015 Andrey Ravilyevich AKHMETOV   15/03/1966 Penza   Oleg DURIN Zarechenskiy Town Court of the Penza Region 16/10/2014   Penza Regional Court 14/01/2015   Convicted of abuse of power Refusal to call a forensic expert Mrs M. for examination at trial