CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 mai 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s490D418E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s12CB6876 { margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s403582AA { width:8.67pt; display:inline-block } .sD462BB4 { width:125.51pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s2753FA3F { width:163.53pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s7E16DFC0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:4.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-4.05pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sC4FC489C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:1.7pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sECE322C2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:1.65pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s1666B0A7 { height:13.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s87680A70 { margin-left:11.67pt; text-align:center; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s299B0C57 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s27932F38 { height:35pt } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 47311/09 Ramil Ayazbayevich KHASANOV against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12 May 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Georgios A. Serghides, President,   Erik Wennerström,   Lorraine Schembri Orland, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS and Procedure The applicants are Russian nationals who live in different regions of Russia. Between 2008 and 2011 they were convicted of various criminal offences. Their personal details and information relevant to the criminal proceedings against them appear in the annexed Table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention about their absence from appeal proceedings in their criminal case were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). The Government were represented by Mr M. Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW The relevant domestic legal provisions governing, at the material time, a defendant’s participation in appeal proceedings in a criminal case were summarised in the Court’s judgment in the case of Kozlitin v. Russia , no.   17092/04, §§ 22-36, 14 November 2013. The law Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention The applicants complained that their absence from the appeal proceedings in their criminal cases was contrary to the requirements of Article 6 §§   1 and   3   (c) of the Convention, which, insofar as relevant, read as follows: “1. 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: ... (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; ...” The Government submitted that all three applicants had been assisted by professional lawyers and had been duly apprised of the requirement to request participation in the appeal hearings by the trial courts, however failed to do so. In particular, on 29 December 2008 the first applicant, Mr   Khasanov (application no. 47311/09), had asked the appeal court to examine the case in his absence. During the appeal hearing, his representative had not asked to secure the presence of the first applicant. The second and third applicants, Mr Tereshchenko (application no.   7081/12) and Mr Klemenkov (application no.   14409/16), had only requested for their lawyers to take part in the appeal hearings, but did not seek their personal participation. The Government further submitted that all three applicants had subsequently filed supervisory appeals which had not contained any reference to the applicants’ absence from the appeal hearing. The applicants did not comment on the Government’s observations. The Court observes that under Russian law of criminal procedure, as in force at the material time, a defendant was entitled to participate in the hearing in person or by video link, on condition that he made a special request to that effect. The Court has already held that a requirement to lodge a special request to take part in the appeal hearing would not in itself contradict the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention if the procedure was clearly set out in the domestic law, as was in the cases at hand (see Samokhvalov v. Russia , no. 3891/03, § 56, 12 February 2009, and Sibgatullin v. Russia , no. 32165/02, §   45, 23 April 2009). The Court furthermore recalls that in the case of Borisov v. Russia (no.   12543/09, §§ 35-41, 13 March 2012) it found that the applicant, who had been assisted by a professional lawyer of his own choosing and had been duly informed of the requirement to request participation in the appeal hearing, but failed to do so, through his own conduct had implicitly waived that right. The Court notes that the applicants were represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. The first applicant (application no. 47311/09) explicitly waived his right to participate in the appeal hearing. The second and third applicants (applications nos. 7081/12 and 14409/16) failed to inform the Russian authorities of their wish to attend the appeal hearings personally, and thus, through their conduct, implicitly waived that right. Moreover, none of the applicants explained in their submissions why it was important for them to be personally present in a courtroom and what specific statements or evidence, distinct from those made by their counsel, they wished to lay before the appeal courts. Accordingly, there is no indication that the adversarial character of the proceedings was compromised. Consequently, the Court concludes that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) as regards the applicants’ absence from the appeal hearing. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 11 June 2020.   Olga Chernishova   Georgios A. Serghides   Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix     No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant’s name date of birth   Representative’s name and location   First instance judgment (court, date) Appeal judgment (court, date) Comments   47311/09 18/08/2009 Ramil Ayazbayevich KHASANOV 1988     Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan 24/12/2008 Astrakhan Regional Court 19/02/2009 The applicant was absent from the appeal hearing on 19/02/2009   7081/12 19/12/2011 Boris Dmitriyevich TERESHCHENKO 1966   Vasiliy Ivanovich GURYANOV Novosibirsk Kirovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk 23/08/2011 Novosibirsk Regional Court 09/11/2011 The applicant was absent from the appeal hearing on 09/11/2011   14409/16 20/03/2012 Aleksandr Alekseyevich KLEMENKOV 1976   Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 05/07/2011 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 27/10/2011 The applicant was absent from the appeal hearing on 27/10/2011