CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mars 2016

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sEBAC8C2A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:50.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s60C44206 { font-family:Symbol } .sCFEF29CB { width:11.41pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   Communicated on 16 March 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 50816/06 Sergey Vitalyevich SHVETSOV and Nikolay Svyatoslavovich CHEBYKIN against Russia lodged on 30 November 2006 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicants, Mr Sergey Vitalyevich Shvetsov and Mr Nikolay Svyatoslavovich Chebykin, are Russian nationals who were born in 1970 and are serving their sentences in the Arkhangelsk Region. Mr Shvetsov is represented before the Court by Ms   L.S.   Korosteleva and Ms   E.G.   Korshunova, lawyers practising in Arkhangelsk. Mr Chebykin is represented before the Court by Ms V.G. Lutsyshina, a lawyer practising in Novodvinsk, Arkhangelsk region. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 3.     The applicants stood trial before the Arkhangelsk Regional Court on charges, inter alia , of the attempted murder of three persons with the use of an explosive device. The victims sustained injures defined as “light harm to health” as a result of an explosion at the entrance to a café located in Arkhangelsk. 4.     At a preliminary hearing on 1 December 2005 the prosecutor requested that the trial be held in camera in view of the nature of the crime. It appears from the records of the hearing that Mr Shvetsov and his lawyers objected to the prosecutor’s request; Mr Chebykin and his lawyer, Ms   Sh., stated that they had left that matter to the trial court’s discretion. The Regional Court ordered that the case be heard in a closed hearing in accordance with Article 241   §   2   (iv) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to ensure the safety of the participants in the trial in view of the nature of the crime. 5.     The trial was held in camera from 12 December 2005 to 8   February 2006. 6.     At the end of the hearing the court read out the introductory and operative parts of the judgment (вводная и резолютивная части приговора) in the presence of the public and the media. The applicants were convicted as charged and sentenced to fourteen years’ and eleven years’ imprisonment respectively. A copy of the full text of the judgment was served on them on 14   February 2006. 7.     Both applicants appealed against the judgment. They complained, in particular, that they had not had a public hearing and that the judgment had not been publicly pronounced in full. Ms Sh. stated in her appeal that her client had objected to the prosecutor’s request for a closed hearing. 8.     On 14 June 2006 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the appeals and upheld the judgment. The appeal court did not address the applicants’ complaints concerning the lack of publicity. 9.     Mr Shvetsov and his lawyers lodged an application for a supervisory review of the case, in which they reiterated, inter alia , their complaints concerning the lack of publicity. On 9 October 2007 a judge of the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed their application, observing that the trial had been held in camera pursuant to the Regional Court’s decision of 1   December 2005 taken in accordance with Article 241 § 2 (iv) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the introductory and operative parts of the judgment had been read out at the hearing in accordance with the criminal procedure law requirements on the basis of the Regional Court’s decision of 8   February 2006. B.     Relevant domestic law 10.     The Code of Criminal Procedure of 2001 provides: Article 241. Public nature of the trial “1.     Trials of criminal cases in all courts shall be public, with the exception of the cases indicated in the present Article. 2.     Judicial proceedings in camera shall be admissible on the basis of a decision or a ruling of the court in the event that: (i)     proceedings in the criminal case in open court may lead to disclosure of a State or any other secret protected by the federal law; (ii) the criminal case being tried relates to a crime committed by a person who has not reached sixteen years of age; (iii)     the trial of a criminal case involves a crime against sexual inviolability or individual sexual freedom, or another crime where the trial may lead to disclosure of information about the intimate aspects of the life of the participants in the criminal proceedings or of humiliating information. (iv)     this is necessary in the interests of guaranteeing the safety of those taking part in the trial proceedings and that of their immediate family, relatives or persons close to them; Where a court decides to hold a hearing in camera, it shall indicate the specific circumstances in support of that decision in its ruling on this point. ...” 11.     The Courts Administration Office at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation provides administrative support for district and regional courts. In particular, it organises their clerical work, including the archives. Thus, at the material time, the clerical work in a regional court was governed by Courts Administration Office Instruction no. 161 of 13   December 2004. Under Section 16 of the Instruction, only the person convicted, counsel for the defence and the other parties to the criminal proceedings could consult a case file and receive a copy of a judgment and other case-file documents. COMPLAINTS 12.     The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they did not have a public hearing and that the judgment in their case was not pronounced publicly.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a public hearing before the trial court in the present case, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Was the exclusion of the public in the present case “strictly necessary” for one of the purposes set out in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Was the appeal hearing before the Supreme Court a public one?   2.     Did Mr Chebykin and/or his counsel object to the prosecutor’s request to hold the trial in camera? If not, has he exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, for his complaint concerning the lack of a public hearing?   3.     Was judgment in the present case pronounced publicly, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Ryakib Biryukov v.   Russia , no. 14810/02, ECHR 2008, and Malmberg and Others v.   Russia , nos.   23045/05, 21236/09, 17759/10 and 48402/10, 15 January 2015)?   The Government are invited to submit the following documents:          the Arkhangelsk Regional Court’s decision of 8 February 2006 ordering the public pronouncement of the introductory and operative parts of the judgment, as referred to in the Supreme Court’s decision of 9 October 2007;          the Regional Court’s judgment as delivered on 8 February 2006, consisting of the introductory and operative parts; and          the records of the appeal hearing before the Supreme Court.