CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 11 janvier 2024

.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 } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sD046859D { width:101.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; 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 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 26474/11 Aleksandr Grigoryevich SMOLIN against Russia and 6 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11   January 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Lorraine Schembri Orland , President ,   Frédéric Krenc,   Davor Derenčinović , 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 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”). 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 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 1 February 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lorraine Schembri Orland   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 Convicted of Witness (indicated by initials). Absent and/or anonymous. Evidence type Reasons for absence and/or anonymity Counterbalancing factors Overall fairness     26474/11 09/04/2011 Aleksandr Grigoryevich SMOLIN 1963 Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna Moscow Supreme Court of Russia   13/10/2010   murder “Ivanov”, “Petrov”, “Semenov” Anonymous witnesses; their statements of significant weight   “Ryzhiy” Anonymous witness; circumstantial evidence;   Mr V. Absent witness; significant weight of statements   fear               death No breach of the overall fairness due to the strength of the other prosecution evidence     42933/11 02/12/2011 Denis Yevgenyevich KUDRIN 1979 Anishchik Oleg Olegovich St. Petersburg Sakhalin Regional Court   05/07/2013   murder, illegal possession of firearms “Alfa”, “Beta”, “Mamonov”, “Nataliya”, Anonymous witnesses significant weight of their statements     fear No breach of the overall fairness due to the strength of the other prosecution evidence     74812/14 19/11/2014 Dzhamalutdin Arsenovich EBUYEV 1991 Allakhverdiyev Rafik Afdandil Ogly Volgograd Volgograd Regional Court   30/06/2014   drug trafficking   "Buyer", absent and anonymous witness; significant weight of the statements     could not be located No breach of the overall fairness due to the strength of the other prosecution evidence     17005/15 06/03/2015 Nadezhda Mikhaylovna ARGUNOVA 1983 Alferova Larisa Valentinovna Perm Perm Regional Court   09/09/2014   drug trafficking "Pavlichev", Anonymous witness   Significant weight of statements fear No breach of the overall fairness due to the strength of the other prosecution evidence.     32711/15 10/06/2015 Zikrullokhon Fayzullokhodzhayevich RAKHMONKHODZHAYEV 1975 Gadzhiyev Bunyamin Eldarovich Moscow Supreme Court of the Russian Federation   11/12/2014   membership in an extremist organisation, preparation to forceful overthrowing of power, illegal possession of arms "Guseynov", "Krasnov", "Djurayev" and "Kurbonov" anonymous "Sadykov", absent and anonymous witnesses; significant weight of the statements none No breach of the overall fairness due to the strength of the other prosecution evidence     37259/15 06/07/2015 Andrey Valeryevich CHILYAKOV 1988 Khashimov Raul Amurovich Chelyabinsk Chelyabinsk Regional Court   16/01/2015   driving offence Mr P.   witness for the defence court’s refusal to call witness for the defence as the attendance was impossible to attend No breach of the overall fairness due to the strength of the other prosecution evidence     44198/15 17/08/2015 Sergey Vladislavovich GULIN 1973 Orlova Aelita Eduardovna Olenegorsk Murmansk Regional Court   17/02/2015   unlawful deprivation of liberty, murder "Kulishenko”, Anonymous witness; significant weight of the testimony fear No breach of the overall fairness due to the strength of the other prosecution evidence