CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 9 février 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .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 } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .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 }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF KAMPER AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 46043/08 and 3 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 9 February 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kamper and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli , President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 19 January 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention 6.     The applicants complained of the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses. Mr Nikishin (application no.   71770/17) further alleged that he had not had access to legal advice after the initial deprivation of liberty, that the time to prepare for the trial had been insufficient and that he had been unable to contest adverse evidence They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) - (d) of the Convention. 7.     The general principles concerning the right of an accused to examine witnesses against him and obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his or her behalf are well established in the Court’s case-law (see   Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no.   9154/10, §§   100-31, ECHR   2015, and Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§   150-68). 8.     Turning to the circumstances of the present case and having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Even leaving open the question as to whether there were good reasons for the non-attendance of the key prosecution witnesses, it considers that the fact that the applicants were not provided with an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses, some of whom had been anonymized, weighs heavily in the balance in the examination of the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings against them. Nor were the applicants able to obtain attendance of witnesses on their behalf, even though their relevant requests were sufficiently reasoned. The Court takes into account that there is nothing in the materials in its possession to suggest that there was any effort on the part of the national judicial authorities to make use of any counterbalancing measures to compensate for the difficulties experienced by the applicants. 9.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention. 10.     In view of the above finding, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the remainder of the allegations made by Mr   Nikishin (application no.   71770/17). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 11.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 12.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, § 81, 12   December 2017), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in the present cases. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses admissible, and holds that there is no need to examine the remainder of application no. 71770/17; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention concerning the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses; Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 February 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President       APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Articles 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     46043/08 29/08/2008 Mark Aleksandrovich KAMPER 1980 Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna Moscow Supreme Court of Russia   30/07/2008   drug trafficking M. anonymous witness   a person employed by the applicant and other members of the criminal group to sell drugs could not be located none     42410/12 04/06/2012 Sergey Vsevolodovich STRASHNOV 1982     Gatchina Town Court of the Leningrad Region   24/10/2011   (final judgment of the Leningrad Regional Court on 06/06/2012)   possessing and selling drugs K. and Kos. anonymous witnesses   buyers of drugs in two test purchases “extraordinary circumstances” none     41623/14 07/05/2014 Maksim Nikolayevich KOROLEV 1980 Meybullayeva Natalya Vladimirovna Chernyakhovsk Kaliningrad Regional Court   19/11/2013   attempted sale of drugs T. anonymous witness   buyer in a test drug purchase death -     71770/17 27/09/2017 Aleksandr Vadimovich NIKISHIN 1988 Galtseva Margarita Valeryevna Saratov Saratov Regional Court   29/03/2017   refusal to comply with a lawful police order, article   19.3 §   1 of CAO M., K., I., Kash., G. and R.   Eyewitnesses the applicant had not indicated those persons as witnesses on his behalf when the police instituted administrative proceedings against him the court refused the applicant’s motion to summon the witnesses