CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9C230781 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .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 6 September 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 12668/08 Denis Aleksandrovich LAMBIN against Russia lodged on 28 January 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Denis Aleksandrovich Lambin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1984 and is detained in Sosnovka, Mordovia Republic, Russian Federation. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 21   April 2005 the applicant, a military man, was convicted in a public hearing of the murder of two minors and was sentenced to imprisonment. The applicant and his lawyer had thirty-five minutes to study the five volumes of the case-file. The conviction was upheld on appeal in a public hearing on 18   August 2005. On 30   July 2010 the appeal judgment was quashed by way of a supervisory review as the applicant’s right to defence had been breached during the appeal hearing. The case was sent for a new examination on appeal. In   September 2010 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation started the examination of the applicant’s case on appeal. The applicant and his lawyer had five days, from 4   to 8   October 2010, to study the six-volume case-file in detention facility no. IZ-24/1 of Krasnoyarsk. When studying the case, the applicant was held in a metal cage without a table or any other facilities to take notes. On 21   October 2016 an in camera hearing was held. Upon his request, the applicant was informed that the case-file did not contain any formal Supreme Court’s decision to hold in camera hearings. On 16   December 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the 21   April 2005 conviction by an appeal judgment adopted in camera . B.     Relevant domestic law 1.     In camera hearings Article   241 of the Russian Code on Criminal Procedure (the CCrP) at the material time provided, by default, for a public hearing unless otherwise prescribed by law. Holding an in camera hearing was possible on the basis of a court decision if: - proceedings could lead to the disclosure of a State secret or other classified information; - a case concerned crimes committed by minors; - proceedings concerning sex crimes or other crimes could lead to the disclosure of sensitive information on the parties’ private life or to the disclosure of humiliating information; - an in camera hearing is essential for the parties’ and their relatives’ safety. The court decision on holding an in camera hearing is to indicate exact factual circumstances on which that decision was based. Such decision may concern the whole proceedings or a part thereof. 2.     Time for studying case-files Article   217 of the CCrP established that after the completion of the investigation an investigator should provide an accused and his lawyer with the case-file. The time for studying the case-file could not be limited unless the accused and the lawyer manifestly drag out the process of studying. According to Article   227 of the same Code after the remittance of the case to the trial court, an accused and the lawyer could ask for an additional time to study the case-file. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article   6 of the Convention about the in camera hearing on 16   December 2010 and the absence of any grounds therefor. The applicant further complained under Article   6 of the Convention about the insufficient time and facilities for the preparation of his defence for the trial in 2005 and appeal proceedings in 2010.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article   6 §   3 (b) of the Convention, during the 2005 and the 2010 proceedings?   2.     Were the hearings during the 2010 proceedings public, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? If not, was the public excluded for one of the purposes authorised by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   3.     The Government are requested to produce copies of the records of the appeal hearings in 2010 in the applicant’s case and a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision by which the in camera proceedings were ordered.