CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 8 décembre 2022

.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 } .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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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. 58303/09 Sergey Igorevich SMIRNOV against Russia and 5 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8   December 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli , President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   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 the applicant, 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”). 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 concerning their right to examine witnesses in the course of the criminal proceedings against them 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. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 12 January 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   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/anonymity/courts’ refusal to obtain attendance Counterbalancing factors     58303/09 19/08/2009 Sergey Igorevich SMIRNOV 1973 Yeremeyev Valeriy Valentinovich Arkhangelsk Arkhangelsk Regional Court   28/04/2009   manslaughter I.   Eyewitness of the crime The witness asked for anonymity for fear of retaliation The witness was placed in a separate room and was questioned by parties to the proceedings; I.’s statement was not sole or decisive evidence.     64141/11 04/10/2011 Viktor Aleksandrovich LUKOVENKO 1985 Vasilyev Aleksandr Vitalyevich Zvenigorod Moscow City Court   23/05/2011   manslaughter defence witness T.   eyewitness of the crime distant region/other country, refusal to appear Domestic courts assessed the relevance of the witness’s statement and sufficiency of the reasons advanced by the defence; the applicant was represented and was able to present his defence effectively     78599/11 18/11/2011 Pavel Vyacheslavovich YELKIN 1985 Smetskoy Andrey Alekseyevich Kursk Supreme Court of the Russian Federation   31/05/2011   murder of two persons combined with rape and inciting others to commit murder defence witnesses Z, Y, C, B, T, D, K, A, Ch   the applicant sought to rely on the witnesses’ statement to confirm his alibi their testimonies were considered by the trial court irrelevant to the factual circumstances to be established by the jury members Domestic courts assessed the relevance of the witnesses’ statements and sufficiency of the reasons advanced by the defence; the applicant was represented and was able to present his defence effectively     78905/12 03/12/2012 Vyacheslav Vladimirovich ZABEGALOV 1961 Mylnikov Yegor Nikolayevich Velikiy Novgorod Supreme Court of the Russian Federation   14/06/2012   large-scale extortion with the threat of violence and organisation of several murders defence witness F.   eyewitness of the murder could not be located The applicant was represented and was able to conduct his defence effectively (adducing evidence and presenting his account of the events).     3260/14 23/12/2013 Sergey Aleksandrovich SHKALYAR 1984 Rassokhin Artem Aleksandrovich St Petersburg St Petersburg City Court   02/07/2013   illegal possession of a large quantity of psychotropic substances K. and O.   defence witnesses who were present in the course of the applicant’s apprehension K. could not be located and refused to appear when contacted by phone,   No request from the applicant to obtain O.’s attendance” The applicant was represented and was able to conduct his defence effectively (adducing evidence and presenting his account of the events).     43978/16 29/06/2016 Aleksandr Gennadyevich SERGEYEV 1973 Dashuk Natalya Vadimovna Kabitsyno Kaluga Regional Court   04/03/2016   Drug dealings K.   Purchaser of the drugs The witness asked for anonymity for fear of retaliation or pressure the applicant might put on him or his relatives The applicant, who was represented, was able to question the witness and to conduct his defence effectively