CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 6 mars 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; 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 } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6EC6BA2A { width:121.74pt; 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 } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; 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 BUNYAKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 7691/15 and 4 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 6 March 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bunyakin and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Diana Kovatcheva , President ,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Mateja Đurović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 13 February 2025, 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 applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the   Government”). 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 their right to examine witnesses. The applicant in application no. 2514/21 also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. 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. JURISDICTION 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATION N o . 4476/18 UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in respect of application no. 4476/18 which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003 VI). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the convention 8.     The applicants complained principally of the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention. 9.     The general principles concerning the right of an accused to examine witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf are well established in the Court’s case-law (see Al ‑ Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011, Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, ECHR 2015, and Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 150-68, 18   December 2018). 10.     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. It considers that the reliance by the domestic courts on witnesses’ statements, who were either absent or anonymised or both, weighs heavily in the balance in the examination of the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicants. The Court also observes that the applicant in application no. 2514/21 was not able to obtain attendance of the witness on his behalf, even though his relevant requests were sufficiently reasoned and the witness’s statements were of decisive nature (for further details see appended table). The Court takes into account that there is nothing in the materials in its possession to suggest that the national judicial authorities made use of sufficient counterbalancing measures to compensate for the difficulties experienced by the applicants. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention. 12.     In view of the above finding, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the remainder of the allegations made by the applicant in application no. 2514/21. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     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; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants’ complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Rejects the Government’s request to strike application no. 4476/18 out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declaration which they submitted; 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. 2514/21; 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 6 March 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Diana Kovatcheva   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     7691/15 28/01/2015 Maksim Aleksandrovich BUNYAKIN 1988   Tigeyeva Olga Sergeyevna Vorkuta Supreme Court of the Komi Republic   12/08/2014   drug trafficking "Zolotarev" Anonymous   Sole evidence (count of 31/07/2013)   Decisive evidence (count of 07/08/2013)   none Insufficient: no assessment of the necessity to anonymise the witness; no importance attached to the necessity of counterbalancing the restrictions imposed on the defence by the hearing of the anonymous witness     10968/16 02/02/2016 Maksim Vladimirovich LAPTEV 1979   Borisenko Svetlana Valentinovna Novosibirsk Novosibirsk Regional Court   06/08/2015   drug trafficking "Ivanov" absent and anonymous   decisive evidence death, fear Insufficient: no assessment of the reasonableness of the personal fear of the witness and of the necessity to anonymise him; no importance attached to the necessity of counterbalancing the restrictions imposed on the defence by the hearing of the anonymous witness     54121/16 05/09/2016 Semed Kazimagomedovich NURMAGOMEDOV 1982   Kayumov Vadim Vatanovich Moscow Supreme Court of Russia   26/05/2016   illegal possession of explosive device, preparations to commit an act of terrorism "Vasilyev”, “Zaytsev”, “Ivanov”, “Pavlov”, “Sergeyev” and "Fedorov" Anonymous witnesses   decisive evidence fear Insufficient: no assessment of the necessity to anonymise the witnesses; no importance attached to the necessity of counterbalancing the restrictions imposed on the defence by the hearing of the anonymous witnesses     4476/18 25/04/2018 Kuanyshpay Zhambulovich ZHAMBULOV 1977       Omsk Regional Court   05/03/2018   theft N.R. and N.M. absent witnesses   decisive evidence medical reasons, distant region/other country Insufficient: lack of reasonable efforts to secure the witnesses’attendance     2514/21 07/12/2020 Aleksandr Anatolyevich KITBALYAN 1963     Moscow City Court   08/06/2020   fraud Mr M. Absent witness   Decisive evidence       court’s refusal to call witness for the defence Insufficient: no sufficient reasoning of the refusal to call the witness and have him questioned in court