The present case concerns the holding of the applicants\u2019 trials in camera<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Khutsishvili and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having regard to:<\/p>\n the applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by the applicants listed in the appended table, (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on the various dates indicated therein;<\/p>\n the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the alleged breach of the right to a public hearing as regards all applications as well of the right to a fair hearing on account of the impossibility to question experts at trial (application no. 54584\/08) and of the use of statements of an anonymous witness (application no. 80988\/17) to the Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) initially represented by Mr G.\u00a0Matyushkin and Mr.\u00a0M.\u00a0Galperin, former Representatives of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by their successor in this office, Mr\u00a0M.\u00a0Vinogradov, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;<\/p>\n the parties\u2019observations;<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 13 September 2022,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The present case concerns the holding of the applicants\u2019 trials in camera (see Appendix for the relevant details about the criminal proceedings and the grounds invoked by the domestic courts to conduct the trials in camera).<\/p>\n 2. The applicants complained under Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention about the lack of a public hearing.<\/p>\n THE COURT\u2019S ASSESSMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 OF THE CONVENTION on account of the lack of a public hearing<\/strong><\/p>\n 4. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n 5. The general principles concerning the right to a public hearing have been summarised in Welke and Bia\u0142ek v. Poland (no. 15924\/05, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a073-74, 1\u00a0March 2011); Raks v. Russia (no. 20702\/04, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a043\u201144, 11\u00a0October 2011); and Yam v. the United Kingdom (no. 31295\/11, \u00a7\u00a7 52-57, 16 January 2020).<\/p>\n 6. In the present case, having regard to the material submitted by the parties, the Court considers that the domestic courts failed to strike a proper balance between the applicants\u2019 right to a public hearing, on the one hand, and the interests at stake invoked by the domestic courts to hold their respective trials in camera, on the other (see Appendix for the specific defects as regards the domestic courts\u2019 reasoning in this regard).<\/p>\n 7. There has accordingly been a violation of Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention on account of the lack of a public hearing.<\/p>\n III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION UNDER THE WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 8. In application nos. 54584\/08 and 80988\/17, the applicants also raised other complaints which are covered by the well\u2011established case-law of the Court. These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they disclose a violation of Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0and\u00a03 (d) of the Convention in the light of its findings in the following judgments (seeKhodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (no. 2), nos.\u00a051111\/07 and 42757\/07, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0473\u201185, 14 January 2020, concerning the inability of the defence to cross-examine experts at trial; Asani v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 27962\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 32\u201142, 1 February 2018); and, as recent example, Vasilyev and others v. Russia ([Committee], no.\u00a038891\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a037\u201144, 22\u00a0September 2020), concerning the use of statements of anonymous witnesses at trial).<\/p>\n APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 9. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 10. The applicants claimed various amounts in compensation for the pecuniary (Mr. Khutsishvili) and non-pecuniary (all the applicants) damage suffered as well as for costs and expenses (Mr. Khutsishvili and Mr.\u00a0Gorepyakin). The Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged by Mr.\u00a0Khutsishvili; it therefore rejects his claim. As regards costs and expenses, regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law, the Court considers it reasonable to award Mr.\u00a0Gorepyakin 1,728 euros (EUR) plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. It dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n 11. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decidesto join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention concerning the breach of the right to public hearing;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);<\/p>\n 5. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants;<\/p>\n 6. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay Mr. Gorepyakin, within three months, EUR 1,728 (one thousand seven hundred and twenty-eight euros) in respect of costs and expenses,to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;<\/p>\n (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n 7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 October 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Olga Chernishova \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Mar\u00eda El\u00f3segui ___________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n List of applications raising complaints under Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 the Convention (lack of a public hearing):<\/p>\n Date of introduction<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n Year of Birth<\/strong><\/p>\n Place of Residence<\/strong><\/p>\n Nationality<\/strong><\/p>\n Represented by<\/strong><\/td>\n Grounds for the Court\u2019s findings as regards lack of a public hearing<\/strong><\/td>\n well-established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n 28\/08\/2008<\/td>\n General reference to safety of the trial participants without specific facts, no weighing against the importance of holding the trial in public.<\/td>\n 14\/11\/2017<\/td>\n No evidence of any threat to the physical integrity of the parties to the proceedings (for insufficiency of the presence of an anonymous witness as a ground for closed hearing, see Boshkoski v. North Macedonia<\/em>, no.\u00a071034\/13, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a049\u201153, 4\u00a0June 2020), no weighing against the importance of holding the trial in public.<\/td>\n 08\/03\/2018<\/td>\n No evidence of any threat to the physical integrity of the parties to the proceedings, no weighing against the importance of holding the trial in public.<\/td>\n 25\/04\/2018<\/td>\n No evidence of any threat to the physical integrity of the parties to the proceedings, no weighing against the importance of holding the trial in public.<\/td>\n
\nCASE OF KHUTSISHVILI AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 54584\/08 and 3 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n4 October 2022<\/p>\n
\nMar\u00eda El\u00f3segui, President,
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd,
\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Krenc, judges,
\nand Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n\n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Application no.<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n Criminal proceedings, period of hearings in camera<\/em> andreasons invoked by the domestic courts<\/strong><\/p>\n Other complaints under<\/strong><\/p>\n \n 1.<\/td>\n 54584\/08<\/p>\n Vladimir Georgiyevich KHUTSISHVILI<\/strong>
\n1956
\nBereznyaki
\nRussianSergey Nikolayevich ZABARIN<\/td>\nConviction of 24\/12\/2007 by the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court, upheld on appeal on 02\/04\/2008 by the Moscow City Court; hearing in camera as from 11\u00a0April 2007 before the first instance court; safety of the trial participants (Article 241\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02 point 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPP))<\/p>\n Art. 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a71 and\u00a03\u00a0(d) \u2013 breach of the fairness of the proceedings on account of the domestic courts\u2019 refusal to call experts F., Sh., So. et Sk. (see Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (no. 2)<\/em>, nos.\u00a051111\/07 and 42757\/07, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0473\u201185, 14 January 2020).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n 80988\/17<\/p>\n Nikolay Vitalyevich MARTYANOV<\/strong>
\n1991
\nSukhobezvodnoye
\nRussianVladimir Alekseyevich LASTOCHKIN<\/td>\nConviction of 05\/04\/2017 by the Mariininsko\u2011Posadskiy District Court of the Chuvash Republic, upheld on appeal on 29\/06\/2017 by the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic; hearing in camera as from 07\/03\/2017 before the first instance court; safety of the trial participants (Article 241\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02 point 4 of the CPP).<\/p>\n Art. 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and 3 (d) – breach of the fairness of the proceedings on account of use of the statements of secret witness \u201cPetrov\u201d: no good reasons for keeping the witness\u2019s identity concealed, his testimony constituted decisive evidence for the charges of the attempted sale of drugs, the domestic courts did not approach the anonymous witness\u2019s statement with particular caution (see Vasilyev and others v. Russia<\/em> [Committee], no.\u00a038891\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a037\u201144, 22 September 2020).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3.<\/td>\n 12229\/18<\/p>\n Sergey Gennadyevich GOREPYAKIN<\/strong>
\n1978
\nPlavsk
\nRussianOksana Vladimirovna PREOBRAZHENSKAYA<\/td>\nConviction of 20\/04\/2017 by the Perovskiy District Court, upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court; hearing in camera as from 27\/10\/2016 before the first instance court; safety of the trial participants (Article 241\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02 point 4 of the CPP).<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 4.<\/td>\n 21579\/18<\/p>\n Demyan Vladimirovich MIKHAYLOV<\/strong>
\n1980
\nShakhty
\nRussianOlga Sergeyevna ZORINA<\/td>\nConviction of 10\/04\/2017 by the Neklinovskiy District Court, upheld on appeal on 16\/11\/2017 by the Rostov Regional Court; hearings in camera before the first instance and the appeal court; safety of the trial participants (Article 241\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02 point 4 of the CPP).<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n