CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 mai 2018

.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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 25 May 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 42301/11 Sergey Borisovich MASLENNIKOV against Russia lodged on 25 June 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Sergey Borisovich Maslennikov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Barnaul, Altay Region. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant held the office of the Head of the Barnaul Internal Affairs Department (the “Department”). On 10 November 2009 the Head of the Barnaul Main Internal Affairs Department ordered an inspection of Department’s accounting documents, in particular, the section containing information on the Department’s expenses for police activities and investigations, contracts and other documents in line with the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ decrees. It was established that the applicant had authorised contracts with and subsequently payments in breach of the law to some police informers. On 5 August 2010 the applicant was dismissed from his office for repeated violations of discipline. He challenged the decision before the court. On 24 August 2010 the judge of the Altay Regional Court held a preliminary hearing. He stated that the applicant’s dismissal concerned police activities (operational and search activities). Therefore the case file contained classified information and the hearing had to be held in camera . On 12 November 2012 the Altay Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim in camera . On 4 February 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia held the hearing in camera and upheld the decision of 10 November 2009 on appeal. B.     Relevant domestic law Article 123 of the Russian Constitution provides that court hearings should be held in public, except for cases established by federal law. According to Article 10 of the Civil Procedure Code proceedings can be held in camera in cases concerning State secrecy or secrecy of adoption, and in other cases established by federal law. Private hearings are also allowed upon the request of a party to the proceedings who pleads for the confidentiality of commercial and other data protected by law, privacy and other circumstances, the public discussion of which is capable of impeding the proper administration of justice or entailing a breach of secrecy or a breach of the legitimate interests and rights of individuals. A decision to hold hearings entirely or partly in private must contain reasons. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the appeal hearing on 4 February 2011 was conducted in camera . QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a public appeal hearing in the present case, as required by Article   6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Was the exclusion of the public in the present case “strictly necessary”, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the court provide any reasons for such measure? Did the court examine any classified documents at the hearing on 4 February 2011? If yes, what documents?   3.     The parties are invited to produce copies of records of the appeal hearing held on 4 February 2011 and a copy of the decision of the Supreme Court of Russia by which the hearing in camera was ordered.