CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 février 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6088A1B { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:115%; font-size:14pt } .s8A9036A7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:115%; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 23 February 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 43978/16 Aleksandr Gennadyevich SERGEYEV against Russia lodged on 29 June 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Gennadyevich Sergeyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Obninsk, the Kaluga Region. He is represented before the Court by Ms N.V. Dashuk, a lawyer practising in the Kaluga Region. The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     On 29 October 2015 the Obninskiy Town Court of the Kaluga Region convicted the applicant of attempted large-scale drug trafficking. 4.     The applicant’s conviction was based on evidence that included the testimony of a prosecution witness known as “Klichko”, whose identity was kept secret. 5.     The applicant appealed against the conviction. Among other things, he contested the substance of the testimony given by witness “Klichko”. 6.     Despite his objections, on 4 March 2016 the conviction was upheld on appeal by the Kaluga Regional Court and became final. COMPLAINTS 7.     The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that he was unable to effectively examine the anonymous witness known as “Klichko” who testified against him.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant invoke before the national authorities, at least in substance, the rights under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) on which he now wishes to rely before the Court (see Cardot v. France , 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200)?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Specifically, was the applicant able to examine the anonymous witness known as “Klichko”, who testified against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?   3.     Were there good reasons to keep secret the identity of witness “Klichko” 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 witness?   4.     Were the applicants’ convictions based solely or to a decisive degree on the statements of the witness whose identity was kept secret?   5.     Were there strong procedural safeguards in place under Russian law and practice, or were specific arrangements made in the applicant’s case, which would counterbalance the use of testimony of that witness?   6.     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 witness “Klichko” 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 identity of witness “Klichko” secret? (c)     Having regard to the right “to examine or have examined witnesses against him” as enshrined in Article 6 § 3 (d), was the applicant able to effectively examine witness “Klichko”, before or during the trial? (d)     Were any restrictions imposed on the ability of the defence to put questions to that witness? If so, were the restrictions compatible with the rights of the applicant under Article 6 of the Convention?