CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 août 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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 30 August 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 65783/09 Anton Igorevich SHENOYEV against Russia lodged on 9 November 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Anton Igorevich Shenoyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and is serving his prison sentence in correctional colony no.   18 in the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was arrested on 27 March 2003. He was suspected of unlawful possession of firearms and two robberies of local post offices, as well as robbery, three counts of murder and the attempted murder of cash transportation officers employed by the Federal State unitary enterprise Russian Post. On 14 October 2003 the criminal case was referred to the Supreme Court of the Buryatia Republic for an examination on the merits. On 20 April 2004 and subsequently on 22 May 2007 the applicant was convicted as charged. Both convictions were quashed by the Supreme Court on 8 June 2005 and 27 February 2008, respectively, and on both occasions the case was remitted to the first-instance court for a new examination. On 12 September 2008, during the third trial, upon the request of the representative of Russian Post, the court closed the hearings to the public. The presiding judge referred to the case-file documents, which contained information about security measures and equipment employed at post offices, armaments carried by staff, and the schedules and routes of postmen and cash transportation officers. Under Russian Post regulations such information was classified, being “for internal use only”. The information in the court’s view constituted a commercial secret protected by the Commercial Secrets Act (Federal Law no.   98-FZ of 29 July 2004) and its disclosure could have harmed State and public interests. After 12   September 2008 hearings in the case were held in camera. On 14 December 2008 the jury convicted the applicant as charged. On 29   December 2008 the trial judge sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment. On 4 June 2009 the Supreme Court quashed the conviction on one count and upheld the remainder of the verdict and sentence B.     Relevant domestic law Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation Article 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation provides that criminal cases should be heard in public. A court may order a hearing to be held in camera (i) if a public hearing could lead to the disclosure of State secrets or other information protected by federal law; (ii)   in cases concerning defendants under the age of sixteen; (iii) if a public hearing could result in the disclosure of information relating to the private lives of participants in the trial; or (iv) to guarantee the safety of such participants or their next of kin. In all such cases the decision to hold a hearing in camera should be justified by reference to the circumstances requiring the hearing in question to be so held. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his criminal case had been held in camera.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge(s) against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been a public hearing in the present case, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Was the exclusion of the public in the present case “strictly necessary” for one of the purposes authorised by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   4.     Was the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Buryatiya Republic of 29   December 2008 against the applicant pronounced publicly, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?