The applicants complained of the unfair trial in view of restrictions on their right to examine witnesses.<\/p>\n
FIRST SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Ivchenko and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2023,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table<\/p>\n 2. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicants complained of the unfair trial in view of restrictions on their right to examine witnesses. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. 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. JURISDICTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos.\u00a040792\/10 and 2\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a068\u201173, 17\u00a0January 2023).<\/p>\n III. THE GOVERNMENT\u2019S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATION No. 59292\/18 UNDER ARTICLE 37 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 7. The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in respect of application no. 59292\/18 which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 \u00a7 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government\u2019s request to strike the application out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307\/95, \u00a7 75, ECHR 2003 VI).<\/p>\n IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 8. The applicants complained principally of the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and 3\u00a0(d) of the Convention.<\/p>\n 9. The general principles concerning the right of an accused to examine witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf are well established in the Court\u2019s case-law (see Al\u2011Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766\/05 and 22228\/06, ECHR 2011, Schatschaschwili v.\u00a0Germany [GC], no. 9154\/10, ECHR 2015, and Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658\/05, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0150-68, 18\u00a0December 2018).<\/p>\n 10. 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. It considers that the fact that the applicants were not provided with an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses, some of whom had been anonymised, weighs heavily in the balance in the examination of the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings against them. Nor were the applicants able to obtain attendance of witnesses on their behalf, even though their relevant requests were sufficiently reasoned. The Court takes into account that there is nothing in the materials in its possession to suggest that the national judicial authorities made use of sufficient counterbalancing measures to compensate for the difficulties experienced by the applicants.<\/p>\n 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention.<\/p>\n 12. In view of the above finding, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the remainder of the allegations made by the applicants in applications nos. 54235\/12, 49901\/13, 3437\/14 and 74480\/14.<\/p>\n V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257\/12, \u00a7\u00a081, 12\u00a0December 2017), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in the present cases.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants\u2019 complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;<\/p>\n 3. Rejects the Government\u2019s request to strike application no. 59292\/18 out of its list of cases under Article 37 \u00a7 1 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declaration which they submitted;<\/p>\n 4. Declares the complaints concerning the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses admissible and holds that there is no need to examine the remainder of applications nos. 54235\/12, 49901\/13, 3437\/14 and 74480\/14;<\/p>\n 5. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention concerning the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses;<\/p>\n 6. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 January 2024, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 P\u00e9ter Paczolay ________________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong> Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n Year of birth<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n Charges convicted of<\/strong><\/td>\n Absent and\/or anonymous<\/strong><\/p>\n Evidence type<\/strong><\/td>\n 09\/08\/2010<\/td>\n 1950<\/td>\n Astrakhan<\/td>\n 11\/02\/2010<\/p>\n involuntary manslaughter<\/td>\n absent and anonymous<\/p>\n statements decisive<\/p>\n \u201cIvanov\u201d<\/p>\n Anonymous;<\/p>\n statements having significant weight<\/td>\n no reasons for anonymity<\/td>\n no assessment of the necessity to anonymise the witnesses;<\/p>\n no importance attached to the necessity of counterbalancing the restrictions imposed on the defence by the hearing of the anonymous witnesses;<\/p>\n lack of reasonable efforts to secure the absent witness\u2019s attendance<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 11\/07\/2012<\/td>\n 1978<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 28\/03\/2012<\/p>\n murder, attempted murder and unlawful possession of weapons<\/td>\n Anonymous witnesses and all their statements were decisive;<\/p>\n Mr G.,<\/p>\n absent witness and his statements were decisive;<\/p>\n Mr Ud.<\/p>\n absent witness with the statements having<\/p>\n significant weight<\/td>\n no assessment of the reasonableness of the personal fear of the witnesses and of<\/p>\n the necessity to anonymise them;<\/p>\n no importance attached to the necessity of counterbalancing the restrictions imposed on the defence by the hearing of the anonymous witnesses;<\/p>\n lack of reasonable efforts to secure the absent witnesses\u2019 attendance<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 13\/08\/2012<\/td>\n 1967<\/td>\n Novosibirsk<\/td>\n 28\/04\/2012<\/p>\n drug trafficking<\/td>\n no assessment of the reasonableness of the personal fear of the witnesses and of<\/p>\n the necessity to anonymise them;<\/p>\n no importance attached to the necessity of counterbalancing the restrictions imposed on the defence by the hearing of the anonymous witnesses<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 08\/07\/2013<\/td>\n 1980<\/td>\n Moscow<\/td>\n <\/p>\n 04\/02\/2013<\/p>\n <\/p>\n drug trafficking<\/td>\n absent and anonymous<\/p>\n decisive<\/td>\n <\/p>\n could not be located<\/td>\n no assessment of the necessity to anonymise the witnesses;<\/p>\n no importance attached to the necessity of counterbalancing the restrictions imposed on the defence by the hearing of the anonymous witnesses;<\/p>\n lack of reasonable efforts to secure the absent witnesses\u2019 attendance<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 05\/02\/2014<\/td>\n 1988<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/p>\n 22\/08\/2013<\/p>\n <\/p>\n drug trafficking<\/td>\n anonymous<\/p>\n decisive<\/td>\n no assessment of the necessity to anonymise the witness;<\/p>\n no importance attached to the necessity of counterbalancing the restrictions imposed on the defence by the hearing of the anonymous witness<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 02\/09\/2014<\/td>\n 1996<\/td>\n Moscow<\/td>\n 03\/03\/2014<\/p>\n assault on a police officer<\/td>\n absent<\/p>\n significant weight;<\/p>\n Mr G.<\/p>\n absent<\/p>\n significant weight<\/td>\n <\/p>\n could not be located<\/td>\n lack of reasonable efforts to secure the absent witnesses\u2019 attendance<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 05\/11\/2014<\/td>\n 1981<\/td>\n Shchepkin<\/td>\n 07\/05\/2014<\/p>\n armed robbery<\/td>\n absent<\/p>\n defence witness<\/td>\n 15\/11\/2014<\/td>\n 1986<\/p>\n Artur Mansurovich ABDRAKHMANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n 1989<\/p>\n <\/td>\n Moscow<\/td>\n 15\/05\/2014<\/p>\n drug trafficking<\/td>\n absent and anonymous,<\/p>\n decisive (count of 06\/04\/2012);<\/p>\n Mrs Iz.<\/p>\n absent<\/p>\n and decisive (count of 08\/06\/2012);<\/td>\n <\/p>\n could not be located<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n no assessment of the necessity to anonymise the witnesses;<\/p>\n no importance attached to the necessity of counterbalancing the restrictions imposed on the defence by the hearing of the anonymous witness;<\/p>\n lack of reasonable efforts to secure the absent witnesses\u2019 attendance<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 12\/10\/2018<\/td>\n 1979<\/td>\n Rostov-on-Don<\/td>\n 28\/05\/2018<\/p>\n bribery<\/td>\n absent and anonymous and<\/p>\n decisive<\/td>\n no assessment of the necessity to anonymise the witnesses;<\/p>\n no importance attached to the necessity of counterbalancing the restrictions imposed on the defence by the hearing of the anonymous witnesses;<\/p>\n lack of reasonable efforts to secure the absent witness\u2019s attendance<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 03\/12\/2018<\/td>\n 1993<\/td>\n Moscow<\/td>\n 05\/07\/2018<\/p>\n deprivation of liberty, robbery and extortion<\/td>\n absent and<\/p>\n decisive<\/td>\n lack of reasonable efforts to secure the absent witnesses\u2019 attendance<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\nCASE OF IVCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 49853\/10 and 9 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n18 January 2024<\/p>\n
\nP\u00e9ter Paczolay, President,
\nGilberto Felici,
\nRaffaele Sabato, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention
\n(unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses)<\/p>\n\n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Application no.<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\n Final domestic decision<\/strong><\/p>\n Witness (indicated by initials)<\/strong><\/p>\n Reasons for absence and\/or anonymity<\/strong><\/td>\n Counterbalancing factors\/overall fairness <\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n 1.<\/td>\n 49853\/10<\/p>\n Lyubov Timofeyevna IVCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Niyazova Munavar Abdrashitovna<\/p>\n Astrakhan Regional Court<\/p>\n \u201cSecret\u201d<\/p>\n could not be located<\/p>\n Insufficient:<\/p>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n 46922\/12<\/p>\n Aleksandr Anatolyevich PAVLOV<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Supreme Court of Russia<\/p>\n \u201cGavrilov\u201d, \u201cBorisov\u201d, \u201cGalkin\u201d, \u201cChernov\u201d, \u201cAleksandrov\u201d, \u201cKlevtsov\u201d, \u201cIvanov\u201d, \u201cAntonov\u201d, \u201cIsayev\u201d, \u201cArtemov\u201d, \u201cFrolov\u201d, \u201cOlghina\u201d, \u201cPalkin\u201d, \u201cIvanov Ivan Ivanovich\u201d<\/p>\n fear<\/td>\n Insufficient:<\/p>\n \n 3.<\/td>\n 54235\/12<\/p>\n Andrey Leonardovich MARKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n Poruchayev Vladimir Viktorovich<\/p>\n Novosibirsk Regional Court<\/p>\n \u201cPetrov\u201d, \u201cVasilyev\u201d anonymous<\/td>\n fear<\/td>\n Insufficient:<\/p>\n \n 4.<\/td>\n 49901\/13<\/p>\n Vladimir Viktorovich KARMANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna<\/p>\n Kovrov District Court<\/p>\n \u201cMs Volkova\u201d, \u201cMs Moiseyeva\u201d<\/p>\n safety<\/p>\n Insufficient:<\/p>\n \n 5.<\/td>\n 13437\/14<\/p>\n Vladimir Nikolayevich GRECHUKHIN<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Smolensk Regional Court<\/p>\n \u201cStruchev\u201d<\/p>\n fear<\/td>\n Insufficient:<\/p>\n \n 6.<\/td>\n 61973\/14<\/p>\n Pavel Vladimirovich YASTREBOV<\/strong><\/p>\n Abramova Antonina Viktorovna<\/p>\n Moscow City Court<\/p>\n Mr S.,<\/p>\n unavailable<\/p>\n Insufficient:<\/p>\n \n 7.<\/td>\n 73332\/14<\/p>\n Roman Viktorovich NIKOLAYENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Nikolayenko Yevgeniya Yuryevna<\/p>\n Supreme Court of the Russian Federation<\/p>\n Mr Ratiya<\/p>\n court\u2019s refusal to call defence witness<\/td>\n No sufficient reasoning of the refusal to call defence witness\/breach of the overall fairness of the proceedings<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 8.<\/td>\n 74480\/14<\/p>\n Ivan Ivanovich KURILYAK<\/strong><\/p>\n Vlasov Ilya Sergeyevich<\/p>\n Moscow City Court<\/p>\n \u201cZhukov\u201d,<\/p>\n could not be located\/ none<\/p>\n Insufficient as regards witnesses \u201cZhukov\u201d and Mrs Iz.:<\/p>\n \n 9.<\/td>\n 49295\/18<\/p>\n Vladimir Yuryevich MATVIYENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Matviyenko Yana Yuryevna<\/p>\n Rostov Regional Court<\/p>\n Mr. \u201cI.\u201d<\/p>\n could not be located\/none<\/td>\n Insufficient:<\/p>\n \n 10.<\/td>\n 59292\/18<\/p>\n Aleksey Aleksandrovich KOROLEV<\/strong><\/p>\n Pleshkov Maksim Alekseyevich<\/p>\n Moscow Regional Court<\/p>\n Mr D.V., Mrs D.K.<\/p>\n none<\/td>\n Insufficient:<\/p>\n