CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 septembre 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6F88BEDC { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sE330DFD7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s20FDDAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s85E2A1C4 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #949494; border-collapse:collapse } .sD271F6F6 { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s3E08F9CA { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC54D2024 { border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF42CB81 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC26F7522 { margin-left:1.85pt; text-indent:-1.85pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85D71A24 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3DE46EBF { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD3B88E32 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA30831E3 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 41214/04 Sergey Konstantinovich GAYEVOY against Russia and 7 other applications (see list appended)   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 Philips, 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 names and dates of birth are tabulated below. 2.     On various dates between 2004 and 2011 the applicants were criminally prosecuted and convicted for various offences under the Russian legislation in force. The particulars of the relevant domestic proceedings are presented in the appended table. COMPLAINTS 3.     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, 7, 8, 10, 13 and 17 of the Convention, as well as Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. THE LAW 4.     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. 5.     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. 6.     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, Pesukic v. Switzerland , no.   25088/07, 6 December 2012, has carefully examined the applications listed in the appended table, the arguments and the documents submitted by the parties. 7.     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’s name Date of birth   Represented by   Relevant judgments   Communicated issue under Article   6 of the Convention   41214/04 24/10/2004   GAYEVOY Sergey Konstantinovich 14/01/1956   Zhulanov Z.S.   Perm Regional Court on 27 September 2004 (conviction of aggravated double murder and unlawful possession of firearms)   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 13   January 2005 (upheld the conviction on appeal) Anonymous prosecution witness “Korepanov”   42722/04 30/10/2004   MOROZOV Andrey Aleksandrovich 04/02/1982   Sitilin M.V.   Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk on 20   August 2004 (conviction of aggravated robbery)   Arkhangelsk Regional Court on 24 September 2004 (upheld the conviction on appeal)   Presidium of the Arkhangelsk Regional Court on 14   January 2009 (annulled the appeal judgment due to lack of legal assistance to the applicant and ordered reconsideration)   Arkhangelsk Regional Court on 10 March 2009 (upheld the conviction on appeal)   Absent prosecution witnesses R., K. and B.   Refusal to call defence witnesses S., Sam. and Sh.   Lack of legal assistance during the appeal hearing of 24 September 2004     18966/05 01/05/2005   OSMANOV Maksim Isekhamovich 14/11/1981   Rylov V.A.   Oktyabrskiy District Court of Kirov on 4 October 2004 (conviction of murder)   Kirov Regional Court on 16 November 2004 (upheld the conviction on appeal) Anonymous prosecution witness “Petrov Ivan”   Refusal to call defence witnesses P., M. and Sha.   20447/05 12/04/2005   STADNIKOV Aleksandr Nikolayevich 08/08/1971   Misakyan T.A. Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Magnitogorsk on 25   August 2004 (conviction of murder)   Chelyabinks Regional Court on 25 October 2004 (upheld the conviction on appeal)   Refusal to call a forensic expert for examination at trial   29532/05 20/07/2005   VAKHRUSHEV Andrey Aleksandrovich 03/12/1958   Golovin A.S.   Perm Regional Court on 23 July 2004 (conviction of aggravated murder and robbery)   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 24 January 2005 (upheld the conviction on appeal)   Anonymous prosecution witness “Petrov Ivan”   33503/05 29/08/2005   PUGACHEV Gennadiy Viktorovich 30/07/1977   Leninskiy District Court of Tambov on 10 June 2005 (conviction of aggravated robbery, assault, sexual assault and rape)   Tambov Regional Court on 28 July 2005 (upheld the conviction on appeal)   Presidium of the Tambov Regional Court on 13   January 2011 (annulled the judgments in part concerning robbery, sexual assault and rape due to absence of the witnesses S. and T. and ordered reconsideration)   Leninskiy District Court of Tambov on 17 May 2011 (conviction of aggravated robbery, sexual assault and rape)   Tambov Regional Court on 28 July 2005 (upheld the conviction on appeal)   Absent prosecution witnesses S. and T.   12983/06 28/03/2006   LUPAN Stepan Vasilyevich 09/09/1960   Kotelnikov I.S.   Military Court of St Petersburg Garrison on 1   September 2005 (conviction of fraud)   Military Court of the Leningrad Command on 14   October 2005 (upheld the conviction on appeal)   Presidium of the Military Court of the Leningrad Command on 13 September 2006 (upheld the lower courts’ judgments on supervision)   Refusal to call defence witnesses K. and S.   Absent prosecution witness F.   Refusal to forensically examine allegedly falsified signature     14551/06 23/03/2006   SEREBRINSKIY Yevgeniy Viktorovich 13/02/1990   Gabzulatinov R.M. Oktyabrskiy District Court of Izhevsk on 8 April 2005 (conviction of murder)   Supreme Court of Udmurtiya Republic on 27   September 2005 (upheld the conviction on appeal) Refusal to call defence witnesses K. and S.