CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 juin 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3635F015 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 30 June 2020 Published on 20 July 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 1271/18 Valeriy Timofeyevich CHERNYSHOV against Russia lodged on 28 December 2017 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Valeriy Timofeyevich Chernyshov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Odintsovo, Moscow Region. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Osherov, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was the sole owner and the director of Nemchinovka Limited Liability Company (hereinafter the “LLC”). In 2008 the applicant married D. and in 2012 he transferred to her a 50% share in LLC. They also entered into an agreement according to which the applicant was in charge of the LLC’s management. It appears that the relationship between the applicant and D. deteriorated and in 2013 they divorced. On 8 June 2012 the applicant, acting on behalf of the LLC, transferred the title to a 50-% interest in the LLC to another company owned by him. On 25 December 2012 the state authorities registered the transaction and the transfer of the title. On 27 December 2012 the applicant, acting on behalf of the LLC, sold the LLC assets, including two land plots and a health care centre, to another company owned by him. On 5 June 2013 the police investigator instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on the charges of fraud and breach of fiduciary duties in respect of the transactions executed by the applicant on behalf of the LLC in favour of another company owned by him. On 16 June 2013 the investigator conducted a search in the applicant’s office. According to the applicant, the search order was issued only on 17   June 2013. On 28 April 2013 the investigator commissioned a forensic expert report to determine the value of the interest and the assets sold by the applicant on behalf of the LLC. On 20 May 2013 the investigator informed the applicant and his lawyer of his decision of 28 April 2013 to commission a forensic expert report. On 1 June 2015 the Odintsovo Town Court of the Moscow Region received the applicant’s case-file and on an unspecified date started the hearing of the case. During the trial the applicant maintained his innocence. He also sought to challenge the findings of the forensic expert examination commissioned by the investigator relying on a “specialist” opinion by Ye. The trial court refused to admit the “specialist” opinion into evidence or to question Ye. and dismissed the applicant’s request for a new forensic expert examination. On 19 October 2016 the Town Court found the applicant guilty as charged and gave him a suspended sentence of four years’ imprisonment. The applicant, D. and the prosecutor appealed. On 16 March 2017 the Moscow Regional Court quashed the applicant’s conviction on appeal and returned the case to the prosecutor. On 14 June 2017 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the decision of 16 March 2016 and returned the case to the appellate court. On 8 August 2017 the Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction, in substance, on appeal and remitted the matter concerning D.’s civil claims to the trial court. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts refused (1) to admit as evidence Ye.’s “specialist” opinion submitted by the defence and/or to question her; and (2) to commission an additional forensic expert examination with a possibility for the applicant to put questions to the experts.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3   (d) of the Convention? In particular, as regards the trial court’s refusal to admit Ye.’s “specialist” opinion as evidence at the trial, coupled with the admission as evidence of the expert report obtained by the prosecution without the applicant being able to put questions to the experts, to challenge their nomination or to propose his own experts for inclusion in the team, was there a disbalance between the defence and the prosecution in the area of collecting and adducing expert evidence (see Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v.   Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, §§   724-35, 25 July 2013; and Pichugin v. Russia [Committee], no. 38958/07, §§   31-38, 6 June 2017)?