CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 décembre 2023

.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 } .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 } .sA3C2123C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; 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 } .s8D17D8A5 { width:127.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; 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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 26674/18 Artem MARGARYAN against Armenia The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14   December 2023 as a Committee composed of: Faris Vehabović, President , Anja Seibert-Fohr, Anne Louise Bormann, judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 May 2018, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the decision not to admit the applicant’s belated observations to the case file, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. He was represented by Mr A. Tevanyan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan. The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention concerning the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses was communicated to the Armenian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that the applicant’s complaint about the courts having held the criminal trial against him in the absence of a prosecution witness is 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, 15 December 2011, and Schatschaschwili v.   Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, 15 December 2015), the applicant’s criminal trial had complied with overall fairness requirement. In view of the above, the Court finds that this complaint is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 18 January 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Faris Vehabović   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses) 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 witness’s absence 26674/18 29/05/2018 Artem MARGARYAN 1984 Tevanyan Armen Yerevan Court of Cassation   12/02/2018   bribery H.Gh.   The witness testified that the applicant had solicited a bribe from him distant region/other country the applicant’s conviction was based on a considerable body of other evidence, including a recording of a covert operation implicating him in the imputed offence; the applicant examined the witness at the pre-trial confrontation, in the presence of his two lawyers; and the domestic courts carried out a detailed assessment of the body of evidence, examined thoroughly the arguments and the objections of the defence contesting the said evidence, and provided sufficient reasons for admitting the absent witness’s pre-trial statement in evidence.