THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 60875/11 Artem Andreyevich NIKONOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 22 May 2018 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková, President, Dmitry Dedov, Jolien Schukking, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 September 2011,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Artem Andreyevich Nikonov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1987 and is detained in Nadvoitsy. He was represented before the Court by Ms M.A. Belinskaya, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg.

2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, 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 applicant alleged that the criminal proceedings which resulted in his conviction were unfair on account of the use of his confession statement given without a lawyer.

4. The above complaint was communicated to the Government on 3 November 2016, and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.

5. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

6. On 24 November 2009 the applicant was arrested by police on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence (premeditated murder and aggravated robbery in conspiracy) and taken to the Prionezhskiy police department, Petrozavodsk.

7. On the same day the applicant made two confession statements. The applicant ’ s first confession statement was recorded by a police officer in a pre-printed form of the “surrender with confession” that contained a reference to and the text of Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation that provided for the right not to incriminate oneself. The applicant ’ s second confession statement was typed by an investigator according to the applicant ’ s account of facts. It also contained a reference to and the text of Article 51 of the Constitution.

8. On 25 November 2009 a record of the applicant ’ s arrest was drawn up and he was provided access to a State-appointed lawyer. Questioned as a suspect on the same day, the applicant reiterated his previous confession in the presence of the State-appointed lawyer.

9. On 2 and 4 December 2009 the applicant was questioned as an accused in the presence of the same State-appointed lawyer. He again reiterated his previous confession, adding that he had killed the victim spontaneously.

10. On 17 March 2010 the applicant, questioned as an accused in the presence of the same State-appointed lawyer, retracted the previous confession.

11. In the course of the trial the applicant requested his confession statements to be declared inadmissible, asserting that they had been given as a result of his ill-treatment and in the absence of a lawyer.

12. On 20 April 2011 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karelia refused to declare the applicant ’ s confession statements inadmissible and convicted him as charged.

13. On 20 July 2011 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation endorsed the trial court ’ s findings on appeal, but corrected qualification of the applicant ’ s actions in respect of his conviction for aggravated robbery.

COMPLAINT

14. The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention that his rights of defence in criminal proceedings were violated, as his initial confession – which formed the basis of his criminal conviction – was obtained in breach of his right to a lawyer.

THE LAW

15. The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings which resulted in his conviction had been unfair on account of the use of his self ‑ incriminating statements he made on 24 November 2009 after he had been apprehended by police. He referred to Article 6 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads 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 ...”

16. The Government disagreed and submitted that the applicant ’ s confession was made voluntarily and after he had been informed of his right not to incriminate himself. They further indicated that his conviction was based on abundant other evidence, including testimonies of victims, witnesses, results of numerous expert examinations and details of phone calls, which had not been called into question by the applicant. Thus, the Government asserted that even in the absence of the applicant ’ s confession statement the national courts would have convicted him on the basis of other available evidence.

17. The applicant, assisted by a lawyer, maintained that after being de facto arrested he requested to be provided with legal assistance, but to no avail, that he did not waive his right to a lawyer and it was restricted for no reason, and that he made confession statements under psychological pressure in the absence of a lawyer.

18. As the Court has held on many occasions, the requirements of Article 6 § 3 of the Convention are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, § 94, 2 November 2010, and Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, § 100, ECHR 2015). The right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 is an unqualified right. However, what constitutes a fair trial cannot be the subject of a single unvarying rule but must depend on the circumstances of the particular case. The Court ’ s primary concern under Article 6 § 1 is to evaluate the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings (see Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 250, ECHR 2016 with further references).

19. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the Government asserted that prior to his confession the applicant was informed about his right not to incriminate oneself, that was confirmed by the applicant ’ s signatures on the “surrender with confession” forms, and that the decisions of the national courts were based on abundant other evidence which was in any event sufficient for convicting him. The applicant submitted no comments in response to these statements except for noting that he gave his confession statements under pressure and in the absence of a lawyer. In the absence of any explanations from the applicant in particular on how the alleged initial restriction of his defence rights irretrievably prejudiced the overall fairness of the proceedings in his case, the Court considers that the applicant has failed to provide the necessary substantiation for his allegation (see Loboda v. Ukraine , no. 8865/06, § 43, 17 November 2016). Given that finding, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine any other arguments by the parties and concludes that it is appropriate to dismiss the present complaint as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 14 June 2018 .

FatoÅŸ Aracı Alena Poláčková              Deputy Registrar President