Last Updated on October 27, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the unfair trial in view of restrictions on their right to examine witnesses.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF DMITRIYEVA AND STYROV v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 38419/14 and 40301/15)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Dmitriyeva and Styrovv. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 October 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the unfair trial in view of restrictions on their right to examine witnesses.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)of the Convention
6. The applicants complained of the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses.They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)
“In the determination of … any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by [a] … tribunal…
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights..
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him …”
7. The general principles to be applied in cases where a prosecution witness did not attend the trial and his statements previously made by him were admitted as evidence are well-established in the Court’s case law (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015). In Schatschaschwili, the Court found a violation on account of the authorities’ failure to provide the applicant with an opportunity to have the two key prosecution witnesses examined at any stage of the proceedings (ibid., §§ 161-65).
8. Turning to the circumstances of the present case and having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Even leaving open the question as to whether there were good reasons for the key witnesses’ non-attendance, it considers that the fact that the applicants were not provided with an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses weighs heavily in the balance in the examination of the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings against them. The Court also considers that there is nothing in the materials in its possession to suggest that there was any effort on the part of the national judicial authorities to make use of any counterbalancing measures to compensate for the difficulties experienced by the applicants on account of the admission of the witnesses’ untested statements as evidence.
9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
10. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, § 81, 12 December 2017), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes a sufficient just satisfaction in the present case.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention concerning the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses;
4. Holdsthat the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
____________
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention
(unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses)
| No. | Application no. Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name Year of birth |
Representative’s name and location | Final domestic decision Charges convicted of |
Witness absent from trial (indicated by initials) Summary of the nature of the witness evidence |
Reasons for absence | Steps taken to compensate for the witnesses’ absence |
| 1. | 38419/14 15/05/2014 |
Nella Ismailovna DMITRIYEVA 1968 |
Akimov Aleksey Yuryevich Moscow |
Moscow City Court 10/12/2013 Attempted aggravated fraud |
A.D. A.D.’s statements were the decisive evidence of the applicant’s involvement in the crime. A.D. was a police officer who, according to his statement, witnessed an attempt by the applicant to extort money. |
distant region/other country | no steps were taken to compensate for the witness’s absence |
| 2. | 40301/15 28/07/2015 |
AnatoliySergeyevich STYROV 1983 |
Supreme Court 29/01/2015 Participation in a criminal gang, multiple assaults, robbery and extortion, including robbery of Mr. P. |
Mr P. (victim) the victim’s account of the events |
distant region/other country, could not be located | order for enforced appearance; the victim is somewhere in Crimea and his exact location could not be established, despite measures taken |
Leave a Reply