CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 novembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .s3DF5EF88 { width:128.75pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 10250/06 Abdul-Vakhab Akhmetovich SHAMAYEV against Russia and 10 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25   November 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Andreas Zünd, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting 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 some of the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention concerning the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses) In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that the applicants’ complaints about the courts having held the criminal trials against them in the absence of certain prosecution witnesses are inadmissible. In particular, the Court notes that in the light of the principles established in the case-law under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see notably Al-Khawaja and Tahery v.   the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-47, ECHR 2011, Schatschaschwili v.   Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015, and Murtazaliyeva v.   Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 117-27, 18 December 2018) the applicants’ criminal trials had complied with overall fairness requirement. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. Remaining complaints In applications nos.   42318/06 and 1691/09 the applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the abovementioned applications 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 16 December 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Peeter Roosma   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Final domestic decision   Charges convicted of Witness absent from trial (indicated by initials)   Summary of the nature of the witness evidence Reasons for absence Steps taken to compensate for the witnesses’ absence; counterbalancing factors     10250/06 07/02/2006 Abdul-Vakhab Akhmetovich SHAMAYEV 1975 Timishev Ilyas Yakubovich Nalchik Supreme Court of the Russian Federation   09/11/2005   banditry, illegal possession of weapons and attempted murder of an official A. and Sh.   identified the applicant on photos held in custody no objection on behalf of the parties to the reading out of the written statements made by the witnesses; considerable body of other evidence on which the applicant’s conviction was based     25257/06 11/05/2006 Aydin Aydinovich ABLAYEV 1957 Nagiyev Ruslan Orudzhevich Kazan Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan   10/02/2006   drug trafficking K.   received drugs from the applicant for re-sale serving sentence in a remote penal facility and her breastfeeding an infant significant body of evidence on which the applicant’s conviction of several episodes of drug trafficking was based; evidence examined, cross-referenced, and verified against the statements of the absent witness K.     42318/06 12/09/2006 Andrey Nikolayevich SOCHAN 1969     Supreme Court of the Russian Federation   17/11/2009   aggravated murders and illegal possession of weapons victim O., prosecution witness Ar.   victim of a failed assassination attempt and the witness to whom the applicant confessed serious medical condition, refused to testify summons and orders of enforced appearance were issued; evidence is neither sole nor decisive; ample body of direct evidence supporting the applicant’s conviction; the written statements by the absent witnesses carefully examined and cross ‑ reference and verified against other evidence     33221/08 15/05/2008 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich LEONTYEV 1972 Sadovskaya Olga Aleksandrovna Nizhniy Novgorod Supreme Court of the Russian Federation   12/03/2008   banditry and multiple armed robberies Y.   a co-accused, participated in the criminal group medical reasons order for enforced appearance; conviction is based on a considerable body of evidence, including video recordings     1691/09 12/12/2008 Maksim Igorevich VASILYEV 1968 Ovchinnikov Oleksandr Strasbourg Moscow City Court   20/08/2009   fraud in conspiracy with others prosecution witnesses S., Kh., P., M.G., M.A., Ch. Ye., Ch. O., A., B. and M.   various elements of the fraudulent scheme could not be located, distant region/other country, medical reasons repeated summons and orders for enforced appearance; conviction was based on a large body of evidence, including open-court testimony of victims/witnesses and documentary evidence; lengthy, elaborated, and detailed assessment of the whole body of evidence by the courts     53831/10 24/08/2010 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich GORYAINOV 1977 Topolskova Mayya Daniyalovna Artem Primorye Regional Court   24/02/2010   sexual assault and aggravated robbery in conspiracy victim A. and witness L.   victim of armed robbery and an accomplice in robbery could not be located, serving sentence (witness) summons and orders of enforced appearance; no objection made by the parties against the reading out in court of the written statements by witness L.; whereabouts of victim A. could not be established, despite measures taken; not a sole or decisive evidence; amble body of evidence available for the trial court to convict the applicant     14472/18 13/03/2018 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich MOISEYEV 1966     Krasnoyarsk Regional Court   14/09/2017   large-scale fraud, multiple episodes multiple witnesses (71 persons whose statements had been read out in court), including the co-accused B. and K., witness D.   direct witnesses of the criminal offence; co-accused persons B. and K., who had been already convicted could not be located, refusal to appear motion to summon witnesses for the hearing; the courts considered records of multiple investigative actions, multiple documentary expert assessments demonstrating the fact of fraud, statements of more than 100 different witnesses including the victims of the crimes, persons, who participated and/or had been indirectly involved in the fraud scheme (questioned during the hearings), pre-trial statements of co-defendants and the confrontation records between the applicant and them, as well as testimony given during the hearings     22495/18 01/05/2018 Magomed Sultanovich TIMAYEV 1979 Tolstykh Andrey Borisovich Moscow Moscow City Court   01/11/2017   robbery M. G., A. S.   victims of a robbery distant region/other country, could not be located repeated summons of the victims, adjournments of the hearings and searches of the victims; defence was provided with a possibility to question these witnesses during pre-trial confrontation interviews; their written statements had been confirmed by a considerable body of other evidence.     24503/18 06/05/2018 Arshak Garikovich TATOSOV 1984 Sepikhanov Mansur Muradisovich Moscow Moscow City Court   14/11/2017   rape S. G.   victim could not be located repeatedly adjourned hearings to locate the victim; the applicant had a possibility to confront the victim at the pre-trial stage during a confrontation interview; the defence had not insisted on questioning the absent victim at the trial   31123/18 16/06/2018 Igor Mikhaylovich SKAKUNOV 1971 Suindykov Talgat Temirgaliyevich Dzerzhinskiy Supreme Court of the Russian Federation   19/12/2017   aiding and abetting in abuse of office R., S.   various elements of the abuse of power (threats of misuse of authority, contractual agreements under duress etc.) distant region/other country, refusal to appear summons sent, but attendance could not be obtained; ample body of evidence serving as the basis for the applicant’s conviction; the applicant failed to demonstrate which specific points of the absent witnesses’ testimony the defence was prevented from challenging; their statements were not sole and decisive evidence   36315/19 24/06/2019 Aleksey Nikolayevich MATYUKHIN 1978     Supreme Court of the Kareliya Republic   16/05/2019   drug purchase and drug trafficking witness Yu.   received information about the applicant dealing drugs and participated in the undercover purchase distant region/other country; witness unable to attend summons sent; neither sole nor decisive evidence, carrying no significant weight; statement of the absent witness was essentially repetitive and similar to the statements by two other prosecution witnesses heard in open court.