CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 juin 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s95AD1C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s3B53EBD4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8BDAE0D { margin-left:12.51pt; padding-left:5.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s9EA2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 8 June 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 41214/04 Sergey Konstantinovich GAYEVOY against Russia and 8 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS     The applicants’ names, dates of birth, and nationalities are presented in the annexed table. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On various dates between 2005 and 2014 the applicants were criminally prosecuted and convicted for various offences under the Russian legislation in force. The applicants’ convictions were based among other evidence on the testimony of one or more prosecution witnesses, whose identity was kept secret, and in certain cases on the statements of prosecution witnesses which were made during pre-trial stages of the proceedings and read out in open court while these witnesses were absent from trials. The applicants objected to the use of such evidence in the criminal proceedings against them, but despite these objections the national courts convicted them relying inter alia on the testimony of anonymous and/or absent witnesses. Subsequently, the judgments of conviction were upheld on appeal and became final. The final judgments’ particulars are presented in the table below. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention about inability to effectively examine anonymous witnesses testifying against them. The applicants in the cases 46043/08 and 41623/14 further complain under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention about absence of certain anonymous witnesses from trial. COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Specifically, were the applicants able to examine the witnesses testifying against them as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?   2.     Were there good reasons to keep secret the identity of the respective witnesses at trials (see Pesukic v. Switzerland , no. 25088/07, § 45, 6   December 2012 and Scholer v. Germany , no. 14212/10, §§ 50-51, 18   December 2014)? (a)     If yes, what were these reasons and were these reasons duly reviewed by the domestic courts? (b)     What were the grounds in the Russian law and practice on which the national courts relied in keeping secret the identity of these witnesses?   3.     Were the applicants’ convictions based solely or to a decisive degree on the statements of the witnesses whose identities were kept secret?   4.     Were there strong procedural safeguards put in place by the Russian law, practice, or specific arrangements in the applicants’ cases, which would counterbalance the use of these witnesses’ testimony?   5.     Was the overall fairness of the proceedings ensured by the domestic courts as prescribed by Article   6   §   1 of the Convention? In addressing this issue the parties are invited to address each of the following questions: (a)   Did the competent national courts assess the impact of keeping secret the identity of certain witnesses on the overall fairness of the proceedings? (b)   Did the national courts ensure the overall fairness of the proceedings as prescribed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by reflecting in the judgments, where appropriate, the reasons for keeping the witnesses identities secret? (c)   Having regard to the right “to examine or have examined witnesses against him” as enshrined in Article 6 § 3 (d), were the applicants able to effectively examine the witnesses, whose identities were kept secret, before or during the trials? (d)   Were there any restrictions imposed on the ability of the defence to put questions to these witnesses? If yes, were these restrictions compatible with the rights of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 46043/08, 41623/14   (a)   Having regard to the Court’s judgment in the case Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC] (nos.   26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011) was there a violation of the applicants right to examine the witnesses testifying against them as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? (b)   Did the Russian law or judicial practice put in place any restrictions on the use of testimony of the absent witnesses whose identity was kept secret? If yes, what are these restrictions? (c)   In the applicants’ cases what were the reasons advanced by the domestic courts allowing them to admit testimony of the absent witnesses whose identity was also kept secret? Did the domestic courts regard admission of such evidence as a handicap to the defence? (d)   Did the domestic courts consider it necessary to afford the defence strong procedural safeguards put in place by the Russian law and practice in order to counterbalance the absence of witnesses whose identity was kept secret? If yes, what were the specific arrangements in the applicants’ cases?     APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name Date of birth Nationality Represented by Final decision Witness(es)   41214/04 24/10/2004 Sergey Konstantinovich GAYEVOY 14/01/1956 Russian     Supreme Court of Russia, 13 January 2005   prosecution witness “Korepanov” - anonymous   46043/08 29/08/2008 Mark Aleksandrovich KAMPER 29/02/1980 Russian     Supreme Court of Russia, 30 July 2008   prosecution witness “Mikhaylov” – anonymous and absent   3873/09 03/01/2008 Aleksandr Genrikovich GILDEYEV 29/01/1968 Russian   Ruslan Shaukatovich GARIFULLIN Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic, 8 July 2008 prosecution witnesses “Khamidullin”, “Gerasimov”, “Nizamiev”, “Asadullin”, “Yarullin”, “Timiryazov”, “Venediktov”, “Mubarakzyanov” - anonymous   7515/09 27/09/2008 Rukhin Arif Ogly AKBEROV 12/12/1986 Azerbaijani   Oleg Vitalyevich NESKOROMNYY Supreme Court of Karelia Republic, 27 March 2008     prosecution witnesses “Chestniy” and “Titova” - anonymous   16349/09 16/01/2009 Anatoliy Anatolyevich TSURANOV 19/07/1980 Russian     Supreme Court of Khakasiya Republic, 13 August 2008 prosecution witness “Lykov” - anonymous   18619/09 23/03/2009 Said Irikovich BAYBURIN 20/07/1976 Kazakh   Svetlana Ivanovna AVDZHAYEVA Supreme Court of Bashkortostan, 25 September 2008     prosecution witnesses “Usmanov”, “Soliyev”, “Gizzatullin” - anonymous   58303/09 19/08/2009 Sergey Igorevich SMIRNOV 09/06/1973 Russian   Valeriy Valentinovich YEREMEYEV Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 28 April 2009     prosecution witness “Ivanov” - anonymous   58789/09 26/09/2009 Anatoliy Ivanovich KIRUSHEV 05/04/1971 Russian     Supreme Court of Komi Republic, 16 February 2010   prosecution witnesses “Ivanov”, “Sidorov” and “Petrov” - anonymous   41623/14 07/05/2014 Maksim Nikolayevich KOROLEV 30/05/1980 Russian   Natalya Vladimirovna MEYBULLAYEVA Kaliningrad Regional Court, 28 March 2014   prosecution witness “Titov” – anonymous and absent