LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
KOLTSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 51498/12;69755/12;36316/13;1997/14;25124/14;30124/14;31933/14;40898/14;78493/14 • ECHR ID: 001-194338
Document date: June 4, 2019
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 5
KOLTSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 51498/12;69755/12;36316/13;1997/14;25124/14;30124/14;31933/14;40898/14;78493/14 • ECHR ID: 001-194338
Document date: June 4, 2019
Cited paragraphs only
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 51498/12 Aleksey Germanovich KOLTSOV against Russia and 8 other applications (see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 4 June 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková , President, Dmitry Dedov , Gilberto Felici , judges , and Stephen Phillips , 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 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicants are Russian nationals living in various regions of the Russian Federation. Their personal details appear in the appended table.
2. The 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 .
3. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. On various dates between 2010 and 2014 the applicants were criminally prosecuted and convicted of various offences.
5. The applicants ’ 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.
6. Allowing the witnesses ’ 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.
7. The 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 ’ pre-trial statements and established their coherence and consistency with other evidence.
8. The judgments of the trial courts were upheld on appeal.
COMPLAINTS
9. The applicants complained under Article 6 §§ 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.
10. The applicants, except for Mr Tomochinskiy , Mr Darmayev and Mr Kuklin (applications nos. 30124/14, 40898/14 and 78493/14 respectively), also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings, assessment of evidence and in the cases of Mr Koltsov , Mr Gazimamedov , Mr Soltanov and Mr Nazarov (applications nos. 51498/12, 69755/12, 25124/14 and 31933/14 respectively) also about the refusal to admit certain materials into evidence.
THE LAW
11. The Court first considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications listed in the appended table should be joined, given their common legal background.
12. The 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 § 1 of the Convention. They argued that the applicants ’ 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.
13. Certain applicants disagreed, while the others did not provide specific arguments.
14. The Court has carefully examined the applications listed in the appended table and concluded that, in the light of the Court ’ s primary concern under Article 6 § 1 to evaluate the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011, and Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, § 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 ’ testimony is possible only as an exception (see Zadumov v. Russia , no. 2257/12, § 63, 12 December 2017, recently reiterated in Kiba and Others ( dec. ), nos. 38047/08 and 2 others, § 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 as well as the accessory complaints of all the applicants except for Mr Tomochinskiy , Mr Darmayev and Mr Kuklin (applications nos. 30124/14, 40898/14 and 78493/14 respectively), under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, complaint of Mr Smurov (application no. 1997/14) under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention, which were not communicated to the Government, and thus must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 27 June 2019 .
Stephen Phillips Alena Poláčková Registrar President
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
Date of the trial and appeal/cassation courts ’ judgments
Witness absent from trial
51498/12
16/07/2012
Aleksey Germanovich
KOLTSOV
11/05/1982
Cheboksary
Yadrinskiy District Court of the Chuvash Republic
28/12/2011
Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic
06/03/2012
Convicted of rape by a group of persons in preliminary collusion and threats to kill
Ms M.
69755/12
10/12/2010
Isa Usamovich
GAZIMAMEDOV
31/05/1971
Oktyabrskoye ,
Chechen Republic
Dokka Saydaminovich
Itslayev
Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic
24/02/2010
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
10/06/2010
Convicted of attempted murder of military servicemen aimed at obstruction of legitimate activity of public security maintenance
Mr Bay.,
Mr D.,
Mr Ko .,
Mr I.,
Mr P.,
Mr V.,
Mr Bab.,
Mr Ku.,
Ms N.,
Mr Sh.,
Mr K.,
Mr U.,
Mr Pt.,
Ms Ye.M .,
Mr O.,
Mr Pl.,
Ms Yu.,
Mr Ch.,
Mr N.,
Mr Z.,
Ms V.M.
36316/13
29/04/2013
Sergey Ivanovich
POPOV
28/06/1976
Krasnoyarsk
Valentina Aleksandrovna
Bokareva
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
27/09/2012
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
29/11/2012
Convicted of robbery with the use of violence not endangering life and health
Mr Sh.
1997/14
17/12/2013
Igor Alekseyevich
SMUROV
04/07/1991
Donskoy , Tula Region
Yuliya Aleksandrovna
Kolosovskaya
Kuntsevskiy District Court of Moscow
15/05/2013
Moscow City Court
29/07/2013
Convicted of attempted trafficking of psychotropic substances on a large scale
Mrs Iz .,
Mr B.,
Mrs V.,
Mr S.,
Mrs K.,
Mr V.
25124/14
05/03/2014
Dagir Abakarovich
SOLTANOV
02/07/1983
Makhachkala,
Dagestan Republic
Khalimat Shapigadzhiyevna
Aligadzhiyeva
Kumtorkalinskiy District Court of the Dagestan Republic
06/06/2013
Supreme Court of Russian Federation
01/04/2014
Convicted of attempted drug trafficking on an especially large scale
Mr R.
30124/14
20/06/2014
Sergey Anatolyevich
TOMOCHINSKIY
28/05/1987
Biysk, Altay Region
Gorno-Altayskiy Town Court of the Republic of Altay
26/07/2013
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
29/04/2014
Convicted of attempted drug trafficking by a group of persons on preliminary collusion on a large scale, attempted drug trafficking
Mr I.
31933/14
16/04/2014
Vsevolod Vladimirovich
NAZAROV
06/01/1967
Yaroslavl
Igor Borisovich
Bushmanov
Khamovnitcheskiy District Court of Moscow
19/04/2013
Moscow City Court
07/03/2014
Convicted of swindling by a group of persons on preliminary collusion on an especially large scale
Mrs Yak.,
Mrs Pch .,
Mr Kor.,
Mrs Va.,
Mrs Ag.,
Mrs Scher .,
Mrs L.,
Mrs N.,
Mrs F.,
Mr P.,
Mrs Ul .,
Mrs Abr.,
Mr Abr.,
Mrs M.
40898/14
12/05/2014
Boris Khaychiyevich
DARMAYEV
01/02/1969
Tsagan-Aman ,
Republic of Kalmykiya
Karmen Erdniyevna
Pavlova
Yenotaevka District Court of the Astrakhan Region
30/10/2013
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
28/05/2014
Convicted of abuse of office
Mr Kh .,
Mr Kur.,
Mr An.
78493/14
08/12/2014
Vladimir Sergeyevich KUKLIN
12/06/1946
Moscow
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow
24/02/2014
Moscow City Court
19/06/2014
Convicted of attempted drug trafficking by an organized group on a large scale
Mr G.,
Mr K.
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
