THIRD SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no.27870\/12
\nTatyana Borisovna MIKHAYLOVA against Russia
\nand 9 other applications
\n(see appended table)<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19\u00a0March 2019 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, President,
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nJolien Schukking, judges,
\nand Fato\u015fArac\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants are Russian nationals, except for MrKhashimov who is Azerbaijani, living in various regions of the Russian Federation. Their personal details appear in the appended table.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On various dates between 2008 and 2014 the applicants were criminally prosecuted and convicted of various offences.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants\u2019 convictions were based among other evidence on the statements of one or more witnesses for prosecution, which were made during pre-trial stages of the proceedings and read out in open court while those witnesses were absent.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Allowing the witnesses\u2019 pre-trial statements as evidence the trial courts in their judgments relied on the impossibility to locate them, and\/or their refusal to appear at court, and\/or remoteness of their place of residence as well as engagements existing at the material time and\/or their poor state of health that made impossible for them to appear before the court.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The convictions were based on a multiplicity of evidence, including statements by the applicants made at the pre-trial stage and at trial in the presence of their lawyers, trial statements by the police officers, other witnesses for prosecution, material and documentary evidence. The domestic courts analysed the witnesses\u2019 pre-trial statements and established their coherence and consistency with other evidence.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The judgments of the trial courts were upheld on appeal, except for in application no. 22877\/13Seleverstov v. Russia where the applicant failed to lodge an appeal against the trial court\u2019s judgment.<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that the domestic courts had not provided good reasons for reading-out of the pre-trial statements of the witnesses for prosecution and thus the applicants had been unable to have those witnesses examined at the trial.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants, except for Mr\u00a0Seleverstov and Mr\u00a0Borsov (applications nos.\u00a022877\/13 and 39177\/13 respectively), also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings, assessment of evidence and refusal to admit certain materials into evidence.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0Ms\u00a0Mikhaylova and Ms\u00a0Gorbaneva (applications nos.\u00a027870\/12 and 50665\/12 respectively) complained in addition under Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and 3\u00a0(d) of the Convention about the domestic courts\u2019 refusals to summon and question the witnesses for defence.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0MrAnanenko (application no. 2935\/13) further complained under Articles\u00a03 and 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The Court first considers that in accordance with Rule 42 \u00a7 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications listed in the appended table should be joined, given their common legal background.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The respondent Government in their observations argued that the applicants had had a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them in accordance with Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They argued that the applicants\u2019 convictions were based on other abundant evidence. Referring to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, as well as the relevant interpretative guidelines and practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Government contended that the Russian legal system had afforded the applicants sufficient procedural safeguards aimed at securing their right to examine witnesses testifying against them and guarantees of a fair trial. In respect of Mr\u00a0Seleverstov (application no. 22877\/13) the Government also argued that the applicant did not appeal against his conviction.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0Certain applicants disagreed, while the others did not provide specific arguments.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has carefully examined the applications listed in the appended table and concluded that, in the light of the Court\u2019s primary concern under Article 6 \u00a7 1 to evaluate the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.\u00a026766\/05 and 22228\/06, \u00a7 118, ECHR 2011, and Schatschaschwili v.\u00a0Germany [GC], no.\u00a09154\/10, \u00a7 101, ECHR 2015), the presumption that in principle the Russian legal system offers robust procedural guarantees securing the right of an accused to examine witnesses testifying against him, ensuring that the reading out of absent witnesses\u2019 testimony is possible only as an exception (see Zadumov v. Russia, no.\u00a02257\/12, \u00a7 63, 12\u00a0December 2017, recently reiterated in Kiba and Others (dec.), nos. 38047\/08 and 2\u00a0others, \u00a7 16, 17 April 2018), the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the applications are manifestly ill-founded, except for application no.\u00a022877\/13Seleverstov v.\u00a0Russia which is out on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as well as the accessory complaints of all the applicants except for Mr\u00a0Seleverstov and Mr\u00a0Borsov (applications nos.\u00a022877\/13 and 39177\/13 respectively) under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, complaints of Ms\u00a0Mikhaylova and Ms\u00a0Gorbaneva (applications nos. 27870\/12 and 50665\/12 respectively) under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention and complaints of Mr\u00a0Ananenko (application no.\u00a02935\/13) under Articles 3 and 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention, which were not communicated to the Government, and thus must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a01, 3\u00a0(a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n Declares the applications inadmissible.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 11 April 2019.<\/p>\n Fato\u015f Arac\u0131\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1 <\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/p>\n no.<\/strong><\/p>\n Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n Date of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n Place of residence<\/strong><\/p>\n Represented by<\/strong><\/td>\n 12\/04\/2012<\/td>\n MIKHAYLOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong>25\/01\/1959<\/p>\n Moscow<\/p>\n AleksandrValeryevich<\/p>\n Tregubov<\/td>\n 26\/08\/2011<\/p>\n Moscow City Court<\/p>\n 21\/11\/2011<\/p>\n Convicted of swindling with use of an official position on a large scale in excess of official powers<\/td>\n Ms L.,<\/p>\n Ms K.,<\/p>\n MsSav.,<\/p>\n Mr K.,<\/p>\n Ms D.,<\/p>\n Ms R.,<\/p>\n Ms Z.,<\/p>\n MsZel.,<\/p>\n Ms\u00a0Sem.,<\/p>\n Ms B.,<\/p>\n Ms A.,<\/p>\n Ms Sam.,<\/p>\n MrKuz.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 01\/08\/2012<\/td>\n GORBANEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong>18\/08\/1966<\/p>\n Seversk,<\/p>\n Tomsk Region<\/p>\n LyubovGermanovna<\/p>\n Golysheva<\/td>\n 24\/10\/2011<\/p>\n Tomsk Regional Court<\/p>\n 09\/02\/2012<\/p>\n Convicted of illegal transfer of inventoried and seized property by a person entrusted with this property<\/td>\n 04\/12\/2012<\/td>\n ANANENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong>01\/04\/1957<\/p>\n Abinsk, Krasnodar Region<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong>Yelena Vladimirovna<\/p>\n Korneva<\/td>\n 16\/09\/2008<\/p>\n Krasnodar Regional Court<\/p>\n 06\/06\/2012<\/p>\n Convicted of evasion of corporate tax payment on a large scale by non\u2011submitting tax declarations or other documents and by including fraudulent data in tax declarations,<\/p>\n concealment of monetary funds payable as tax exaction on a large scale,<\/p>\n attempted fraud on especially large scale<\/td>\n Mr R.,<\/p>\n Mr K.,<\/p>\n Mr L.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 13\/02\/2013<\/td>\n SELEVERSTOV<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong>05\/11\/1983<\/p>\n Lepley, Republic of Mordovia<\/p>\n Pavel Vasilyevich<\/p>\n Astakhov<\/td>\n 22\/05\/2014<\/p>\n Convicted of abduction by a group of persons in preliminary collusion<\/td>\n 10\/09\/2013<\/td>\n PYSTOGOV<\/strong><\/p>\n 13\/08\/1989<\/p>\n Nizhniy Tagil, Sverdlovsk Region<\/p>\n Inna Valeryevna<\/p>\n Zhuravleva<\/td>\n 23\/11\/2012<\/p>\n Perm Regional Court<\/p>\n 12\/03\/2013<\/p>\n Convicted of illegal deprivation of liberty by a group of persons in preliminary collusion, battery, robbery with the use of violence endangering life and health and with the use of objects used as weapon,<\/p>\n unlawful entry into a home<\/td>\n Ms K.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 16\/04\/2013<\/td>\n \u00a0<\/strong>07\/06\/1986<\/p>\n Belaya Gora, Tula Region<\/p>\n Igor Vladimirovich<\/p>\n Kostritsa<\/td>\n 29\/08\/2012<\/p>\n Moscow City Court<\/p>\n 17\/10\/2012<\/p>\n Convicted of robbery committed with the threat of using violence which threatened human life and health, with the use of objects used as weapons, with illegal entry into a home in an especially large scale<\/td>\n 06\/04\/2013<\/td>\n BORSOV<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong>18\/11\/1991<\/p>\n Moscow<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n 14\/08\/2012<\/p>\n Moscow Region Court<\/p>\n 25\/12\/2012<\/p>\n Convicted of theft by a group of persons in preliminary collusion on especially large scale,<\/p>\n and of involvement of an under-age individual in committing a grave offence by threats and with use of violence and threats of violence<\/td>\n 02\/09\/2013<\/td>\n ZAGOSKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong>27\/02\/1986<\/p>\n Perm<\/p>\n Oleg Vyacheslavovich<\/p>\n Pakhomov<\/td>\n 23\/11\/2012<\/p>\n Perm Regional Court<\/p>\n 12\/03\/2013<\/p>\n Convicted of intentional infliction of a grave injury hazardous for human life which involved the death of the victim by negligence, illegal deprivation of liberty by a group of persons in preliminary collusion, battery, unlawful entry into a home<\/td>\n 26\/10\/2013<\/td>\n SABITALIYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n 03\/11\/1975<\/p>\n Yaroslavl<\/p>\n YuriyAleksandrovich<\/p>\n Melnikov<\/td>\n 22\/04\/2013<\/p>\n Moscow City Court<\/p>\n 08\/10\/2013<\/p>\n Convicted of robbery by a group of persons in preliminary collusion with the use of violence not endangering life and health<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 20\/11\/2013<\/td>\n LIDYAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong>10\/08\/1987<\/p>\n Lesnoy, Kirov Region<\/p>\n Oleg Olegovich<\/p>\n Anishchik<\/td>\n 19\/02\/2013<\/p>\n Moscow City Court<\/p>\n 22\/05\/2013<\/p>\n Convicted of robbery by a group of persons in preliminary collusion with the use of violence endangering life and health<\/td>\n
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n\n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Application<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicant name<\/strong><\/p>\n Date of the trial and appeal\/cassation courts\u2019 judgments<\/strong><\/td>\n Witness absent from trial<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n 1.<\/td>\n 27870\/12<\/p>\n Tatyana Borisovna<\/strong><\/p>\n Perovskiy District Court of Moscow<\/p>\n Ms S.,<\/p>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n 50665\/12<\/p>\n Tatyana Yevgenyevna<\/strong><\/p>\n Justice of the Peace of Circuit no. 1 of the Sovetskiy District of Tomsk<\/p>\n Mr B.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3.<\/td>\n 2935\/13<\/p>\n AleksandrAnatolyevich<\/strong><\/p>\n Abinsk District Court of the Krasnodar Region<\/p>\n Ms N.,<\/p>\n \n 4.<\/td>\n 22877\/13<\/p>\n ValeriyAlekseyevich<\/strong><\/p>\n Lyublinsky District Court of Moscow<\/p>\n MrKh.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 5.<\/td>\n 29884\/13<\/p>\n Andrey Aleksandrovich<\/strong><\/p>\n Gayinskiy District Court of the Perm Region<\/p>\n Ms I.,<\/p>\n \n 6.<\/td>\n 31216\/13<\/p>\n NamigShakhinOgly KHASHIMOV<\/strong><\/p>\n Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow<\/p>\n Ms A.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 7.<\/td>\n 39177\/13<\/p>\n Mikhail Alekseyevich<\/strong><\/p>\n Lyubertsy Town Court of the Moscow Region<\/p>\n Mr G.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 8.<\/td>\n 60378\/13<\/p>\n Igor Vladimirovich<\/strong><\/p>\n Gayinskiy District Court of the Perm Region<\/p>\n Ms I.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 9.<\/td>\n 73272\/13<\/p>\n AlisherMukhtarzhanovich<\/strong><\/p>\n Taganskiy District Court of Moscow<\/p>\n Mr P.<\/p>\n \n 10.<\/td>\n 76629\/13<\/p>\n Sergey Ilyich<\/strong><\/p>\n Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow<\/p>\n Mr M.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n