CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 septembre 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 } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sEAA0272 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.3pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .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 } .sFD82DC6 { margin-left:16.12pt; padding-left:1.73pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .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 21 September 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 9172/09 Aleksey Aleksandrovich CHERNOV against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended) 1.     The applicants are Russian nationals living in various regions of the Russian Federation. Their names and dates of birth are tabulated below. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 2.     On various dates between 2008 and 2014 the applicants were criminally prosecuted and convicted for various offences under the Russian legislation in force. 3.     The applicants’ convictions were based among other evidence on the statements of one or more prosecution witnesses, which were made during pre-trial stages of the proceedings and read out in open court while those witnesses were absent from trials. 4.     The national courts allowed the pre-trial statements to be read out and admitted these statements as evidence without examination of the witnesses during trials. In doing so the courts relied on the impossibility of the witnesses’ attendance due to them being missing, evading justice or being on wanted persons lists. 5.     The applicants appealed against the judgments of conviction arguing inter alia that their convictions were unfair due to inability to examine those witnesses. However, the judgments of conviction were upheld on appeal and became final. The final judgments’ particulars and the initials of the witnesses, whose statements were read out, are tabulated below. COMPLAINT 6.     The applicants complain under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3   (d) of the Convention that they did not have a fair trial in criminal proceedings against them, since they were unable to obtain the attendance of the witnesses testifying against them and to examine them in court.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 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 against them as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?   2.     Were there good reasons for their absence at trials (see Al-Khawaja and   Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   26766/05 and   22228/06, §§   120 ‑ 25, ECHR 2011)?   (a)     If yes, did the national authorities make reasonable effort to secure the presence of the witnesses during trials as requested by the applicant? (b)     Were these reasons and efforts duly reviewed by the domestic courts? What proof had been used by the domestic courts in the course of such review? (c) What were the grounds in the Russian law and practice on which the national courts relied in reading out of the pre-trial statements made by the witnesses absent at trials? What was the nature of the grounds hindering the witnesses’ presence at the trial hearing?   3.     Were the applicants’ convictions based solely or to a decisive degree on the statements of the witnesses absent from trials (see Lucà v.   Italy , no.   33354/96, § 40, ECHR 2001 ‑ II, and Al-Khawaja and Tahery , cited above, §§ 126-28)?   4.     Having regard to the reading out of the absent witnesses’ pre-trial statements, was the overall fairness of the proceedings ensured by the domestic courts as prescribed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Al   Khawaja and Tahery , cited above, §§ 144-47)? In addressing this issue the parties are invited to address each of the following questions:   (a)     Did the applicants waive the right to cross-examine the absent witnesses? (b) Did the competent national courts assess the impact of the absence of the witnesses on the overall fairness of the proceedings? (c)     Did the national courts ensure the overall fairness of the proceedings as prescribed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by relying on the good reasons for reading out of the witnesses’ pre-trial statements and duly reflecting these reasons in the judgments? (d)     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 such evidence (see Al ‑ Khawaja and Tahery , cited above, §   147)? Were there mechanisms to safeguard the defence’s right to impugn the fairness of the gathering of testimony, the credibility of the witness and the reliability of his or her testimony? (e) What was the weight of the read-out testimony of the non-cross-examined witnesses in the trial court’s judgment? (f)     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 examine the witnesses absent at trials during the pre-trial proceedings? In particular, (i)     What was the kind of public authority before which the witnesses’ prior testimony was given? (ii) Were the applicants able to put questions to these witnesses and to submit their objections? (iii) Was the defence lawyer present at any hearing of the witness prior to the trial? Were the applicants assisted by defence lawyers in examining the witnesses against them during the pre-trial proceedings? (iv)     Did the confrontation procedure conducted by the State officials, if any, meet the requirements of independence and impartiality (see Melnikov v. Russia, no. 23610/03, §   80, 14   January 2010)?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence Represented by Final judgment Absent prosecution witness(es)   9172/09* 23/01/2009 Aleksey Aleksandrovich CHERNOV 27/06/1976 Astrakhan     Astrakhan Regional Court, 24 July 2008   Mrs A. and Mr A.   10355/09* 15/01/2009 Pavel Igorevich LOBAREV 04/01/1979 Novosibirsk     Novosibirsk Regional Court, 1 October 2008   Mr Chur.   19885/09* 03/03/2009 Vasiliy Nikolayevich SOROKIN 21/10/1976 Kotlas       Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 19 December 2008 Mr S. and Mrs I.   68303/10* 27/10/2010 Aleksey Alekseyevich TELKOV 11/01/1980 Mikun     Supreme Court of Komi Republic, 14 May 2010 Mr B.   14358/11* 14/02/2011 Dmitriy Anatolyevich DUMLER 01/07/1965 Volgograd     Volgograd Regional Court, 11 April 2011 Mr K.   12934/12* 16/02/2012 Stanislav Vitalyevich SHKARIN 10/02/1980 Moscow     Moscow City Court, 19 December 2011 Mr P.   76458/12* 06/11/2012 Roman Yuryevich KAZAKOVSKIY 27/12/1985 Lesnoy   Vladimir Aleksandrovich ROMANOV Supreme Court of Chuvashiya Republic, 9 October 2012 Mrs G.   25684/13* 27/03/2013 Valeriy Petrovich KOSOV 06/11/1979 Reutov   Andrey Vladimirovich KLYKOV Moscow City Court, 1 November 2012 Mr N.   42424/14 31/05/2014 Pavel Viktorovich ANISIMOV 27/08/1981 Murmansk   Aleksandr Yuryevich DERIYEV Murmansk Regional Court, 22 April 2014 Mr K.   49429/14* 30/10/2014 Vadim Olegovich NOVGORODOV 12/02/1970 Velikiy Novgorod     Novgorod Regional Court, 7 October 2014 Mr G.