CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 janvier 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } .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 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; 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 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s8E8B00CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 }   Communicated on 18 January 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 26474/11 Aleksandr Grigoryevich SMOLIN against Russia and 6 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS   1.     The applicants’ names, dates of birth, and nationalities are set out in the appendix. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 2.     On various dates between 2010 and 2016 the applicants were criminally prosecuted and convicted for various offences under the Russian legislation in force. 3.     The applicants’ convictions were based on evidence that included the testimony of one or more prosecution witnesses whose identity was kept secret. In case no. 26474/11 the applicant’s conviction was also based on the statements of a prosecution witness which had been made during the pre ‑ trial stage of the proceedings and which were read out in open court in the absence of that witness. 4.     The applicants objected to the use of such evidence in the criminal proceedings against them. Despite their objections, the national courts convicted them, relying, inter alia, on the testimony of anonymous and/or absent witnesses. Subsequently, the convictions were upheld on appeal and became final. The details of the final judgments are set out in the appendix. COMPLAINTS 5.     The applicants complain under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that they were unable to effectively examine anonymous witnesses testifying against them. 6.     The applicant in case no. 26474/11 further complains under Article   6 §§   1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that a prosecution witness, Mr V., was absent from the trial. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Specifically, were the applicants able to examine the witnesses testifying against them as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?   2.     Were there good reasons to keep secret the identity of the respective witnesses at the trials (see Pesukic v. Switzerland , no. 25088/07, §   45, 6   December 2012 and Scholer v. Germany , no. 14212/10, §§   50-51, 18   December 2014)? (a)     If so, what were the reasons and were they duly reviewed by the domestic courts? (b)     What were the grounds in Russian law and practice on which the national courts relied in keeping secret the identity of the witnesses?   3.     Were the applicants’ convictions based solely or to a decisive degree on the statements of the witnesses whose identities were kept secret?   4.   Were there strong procedural safeguards in place under Russian law and practice, or were specific arrangements made in the applicants’ cases, which would counterbalance the use of those witnesses’ testimony?   5.     Was the overall fairness of the proceedings ensured by the domestic courts as prescribed by Article   6   §   1 of the Convention? In addressing this issue the parties are invited to answer each of the following questions: (a)   Did the competent national courts assess the impact of keeping secret the identity of certain witnesses on the overall fairness of the proceedings? (b)   Did the national courts ensure the overall fairness of the proceedings as prescribed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by reflecting in the judgments, where appropriate, the reasons for keeping the witnesses’ identities secret? (c)   Having regard to the right “to examine or have examined witnesses against him” as enshrined in Article 6 § 3 (d), were the applicants able to effectively examine the witnesses whose identities were kept secret, before or during the trials? (d)   Were any restrictions imposed on the ability of the defence to put questions to those witnesses? If so, were the restrictions compatible with the rights of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention?   APPENDIX No. Application number Lodged on Applicant’s name date of birth place of residence Represented by Final decision Witness(es)   26474/11 09/04/2011 Aleksandr Grigoryevich SMOLIN 14/08/1963 Bratsk (Irkutsk region)     Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 13   October 2010   prosecution witnesses “Ivanov”, “Petrov”, “Semenov”, “Ryzhiy” – anonymous;   prosecution witness Mr V. – absent     42933/11 02/12/2011 Denis Yevgenyevich KUDRIN 16/10/1979 Vanino (Khabarovsk region)   Fanil Nailyevich FARKHULLIN Sakhalin Regional Court, 5 July 2013     prosecution witnesses “Alfa”, “Beta”, “Nataliya”, “Mamonov” - anonymous     76105/14 20/11/2014 Said Alikovich OZMANYAN 04/10/1986 Novaya Kuka (Zabaykalskiy region)   Zabaykalskiy Regional Court, 22 May 2014     prosecution witness Mr   Veselov – anonymous (unavailable for observation, although identity officially disclosed)   7691/15 28/01/2015 Maksim Aleksandrovich BUNYAKIN 28/06/1988 Vorkuta (Republic of Komi)     Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 12   August 2014     prosecution witness “Zolotarev” - anonymous   17005/15 06/03/2015 Nadezhda Mikhaylovna ARGUNOVA 01/01/1983 Perm     Perm Regional Court, 9   September 2014     prosecution witness “Pavlichev” - anonymous   44198/15 17/08/2015 Sergey Vladislavovich GULIN 12/04/1973 Murmansk   Aelita Eduardovna ORLOVA Murmansk Regional Court, 17   February   2015     prosecution witness “Kulishenko” - anonymous   54121/16 05/09/2016 Semed Kazimagomedovich NURMAGOMEDOV 31/01/1982 Aleksino (Moscow region)   Vadim Vatanovich KAYUMOV Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 26   May 2016       prosecution witnesses “Vasilyev”, “Zaytsev”, “Ivanov”, “Pavlov”, “Sergeyev”, “Romanov”, “Fedorov” - anonymous