KONDRATYUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 6823/19 (Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial : Third Section Committee) [2024] ECHR 678 (18 July 2024)


BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

European Court of Human Rights


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> KONDRATYUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 6823/19 (Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial : Third Section Committee) [2024] ECHR 678 (18 July 2024)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2024/678.html
Cite as: [2024] ECHR 678

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]


 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KONDRATYUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 6823/19 and 3 others -

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

18 July 2024

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.


In the case of Kondratyuk and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Ioannis Ktistakis, President,
 Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,
 Diana Kovatcheva, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 27 June 2024,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE


1.  The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") on the various dates indicated in the appended table.


2.  The Russian Government ("the Government") were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS


3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.


4.  The applicants complained of the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses.

THE LAW

  1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS


5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

  1. Jurisdiction


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. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68-73, 17 January 2023).

  1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention


7.  The applicants complained of the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention.


8.  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's case-law (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011, Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, ECHR 2015 and Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, 18 December 2018).


9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the reliance by the domestic courts on anonymous witnesses' statements to convict the applicants weighs heavily in the balance in the examination of the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings against them. There is nothing in the materials in the Court's possession to suggest that the national judicial authorities made use of sufficient counterbalancing measures to compensate for the difficulties experienced by the applicants because of the admission of anonymous evidence.


10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention.

  1. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION


11.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, § 81, 12 December 2017), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in the present cases.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

  1. Decides to join the applications;
  2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
  3. Declares the applications admissible;
  4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention concerning the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses;
  5. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 July 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 

 Viktoriya Maradudina Ioannis Ktistakis

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

 


APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention

(unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant's name

Year of birth

 

Representative's name and location

Final domestic decision

Convicted of

Witness (indicated by initials)

Absent and/or anonymous

Evidence type

Reasons for absence and/or anonymity

Counterbalancing factors

Overall fairness

  1.    

6823/19

05/01/2019

Alla Aleksandrovna KONDRATYUK

1979

 

 

Kaliningrad Regional Court

 

02/08/2018

 

drug trafficking

"Zhvachka"

anonymous

 

decisive

fear

Insufficient:

no assessment of the necessity to anonymise the witness;

no importance attached to the necessity of counterbalancing the restrictions imposed on the defence by the hearing of the anonymous witness

  1.    

8343/19

04/02/2018

Abdula Magomedrasulovich OMAROV

1992

Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna

Kazan

Supreme Court of Russia

 

09/08/2018

 

membership in a terrorist organisation

"Petrov"

anonymous

 

significant weight

fear

Insufficient:

no assessment of the necessity to anonymise the witness;

no importance attached to the necessity of counterbalancing the restrictions imposed on the defence by the hearing of the anonymous witness

  1.    

16932/19

13/03/2019

Mukharem Bayevich OROZBAYEV

1974

Yermolayeva Nadezhda Viktorovna

Moscow

Supreme Court of Russia

 

13/09/2018

 

incitement to terrorist activities

"Magomedov"

anonymous

 

significant weight

none

Insufficient:

no assessment of the necessity to anonymise the witness;

no importance attached to the necessity of counterbalancing the restrictions imposed on the defence by the hearing of the anonymous witness

  1.    

15145/21

15/02/2021

Mikhail Alekseyevich KULKOV

1994

 

 

Supreme Court of Russia

 

27/04/2021

 

membership in a terrorist organisation

"Snupikov"

anonymous

 

decisive

fear

Insufficient:

no assessment of the necessity to anonymise the witness;

no importance attached to the necessity of counterbalancing the restrictions imposed on the defence by the hearing of the anonymous witness

 

 


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2024/678.html