Communicated on 24 June 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 10384/12 Vladimir Vladimirovich AVZHIYAN against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended)

1. The applicants ’ names , dates of birth , and nationalities are presented in the annexed table. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

2 . On various dates between 20 11 and 201 4 the applicants were criminally prosecuted and convicted for various offences under the Russian legislation in force.

3 . The applicants ’ convictions were based among other evidence on the testimony of one or more prosecution witnesses, whose identity was kept secret, and in certain cases on the statements of prosecution witnesses which were made during pre-trial stages of the proceedings and read out in open court while the se witnesses were absent from trials.

4 . The applicants objected to the use of such evidence in the criminal proceedings against them, but despite these objections the national courts convicted them relying inter alia on the testimony of anonymous and/or absent witnesses. Subsequently, t he judgments of conviction were upheld on appeal and became final. The final judgments ’ particulars are presented in the table below.

COMPLAINTS

5. The applicants complain under Article 6 § § 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention about inability to effectively examine anonymous witnesses testifying against them .

6. The applicants in the cases 10384/12, 42410/12, 46922/12, 52893/12, 24356/13, 49901/13, 74480/14, 74812/14 further complain under Article 6 § § 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention about absence of certain witnesses (including certain anonymous witnesses) from trial.

COMMON QUESTIONS

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 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 yes, what were these reasons and w ere these reasons duly reviewed by the domestic courts?

( b ) What were the grounds in the Russian law and practice on which the national courts relied in keeping secret the identity of these 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 put in place by the Russian law, practice, or specific arrangements in the applicants ’ cases, which would counterbalance the use of these witnesses ’ testimony ?

5 . W as 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 address 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 there any restrictions imposed on the ability of the defence to put questions to these witnesses? If yes, were these restrictions compatible with the rights of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention?

Case-specific Questions

1. 10384/12 , 42410/12, 46922/12 , 52893/12, 24356/13, 49901/13, 74480/14 , 74812/14

1 . Having regard to the Court ’ s judgment in the case Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC] ( nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011 ) was there a violation of the applicants right to examine the witnesses testifying against them as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention ?

(a) Did the Russian law or judicial practice put in place any restrictions on the use of testimony of the absent witnesses whose identity was kept secret ? If yes, what are these restrictions?

(b) In the applicants ’ cases what were the reasons advanced by the domestic courts allowing them to admit testimony of the absent witnesses whose identity was also kept secret? Did the domestic courts regard admission of such evidence as a handicap to the defence?

(c) Did the domestic courts consider it necessary to afford the defence strong procedural safeguards put in place by the Russian law and practice in order to counterbalance the absence of witnesses whose identity was kept secret? If yes, what were the specific arrangements in the applicants ’ cases?

2 . What was the nature of the ground hindering the witness ’ s presence at the trial hearing?

3 . What was the kind of public authority before which the witness ’ s prior testimony was given?

4 . Was the defence lawyer present at any hearing of the witness prior to the trial?

5 . Where there mechanisms to safeguard the defence ’ s right to impugn the fairness of the gathering of testimony, the credibility of the witness and the reliability of his or her testimony?

6 . What was the weight of the read-out testimony of the non-cross-examined witness in the trial court ’ s judgment?

7 . Did the defendant waive the right to cross-examine the absent witness?

APPENDIX

No.

Application

no.

Lodged on

Applicant name

date of birth

nationality

Represented by

Final decision

Wintess ( es )

10384/12*

05/04/2012

Vladimir Vladimirovich AVZHIYAN

23/04/1989

Russian

Krasnodar Regional Court, 16 November 2011

prosecution witnesses "James" and "Bond": anonymous and absent

42410/12*

15/10/2012

Sergey Vsevolodovich STRASHNOV

07/12/1982

Russian

Leningrad Regional Court, 6 June 2012

prosecution witnesses “ Kurbatov ” and “ Kosin ”: anonymous and absent

46922/12

11/07/2012

Aleksandr Anatolyevich PAVLOV

30/05/1978

Russian

Sergey Semenovich SHALUKHIN

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 28 March 2012

prosecution witnesses “ Gavrilov ”, “ Borisov ”, “ Galkin ”, “ Aleksandrov ”, “ Antonov ”, “Ivanov”, “Isayev”, “ Palkin ”, “Ivanov Ivan Ivanovich ”: anonymous and absent

prosecution witnesses “ Klevtsov ”, “ Chernov ”, “ Artyomov ”, “ Olgina ”, “ Sergeyev ”, “ Frolov ”,: anonymous

prosecution witnesses Mr G. and Mr Ud .: absent

52893/12*

26/07/2012

Vladimir Aleksandrovich TYURIN

11/05/1982

Russian

Saint Petersburg City Court, 29 May 2012

prosecution witnesses “ Bashirov ” and “Shevchenko”: anonymous and absent

54235/12*

13/08/2012

Andrey Leonardovich MARKOV

07/03/1967

Russian

Vladimir Viktorovich PORUCHAYEV

Novosibirsk Regional Court, 28 April 2012

prosecution witnesses “ Petrov ” and “ Vasilyev ”: anonymous

24356/13*

07/03/2013

Nasimzhon Nodirovich SHIRINOV

31/07/1975

Tajik

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 13 December 2012

prosecution witness “Prokhorov”: anonymous and absent

prosecution witness Mr B.: absent

49901/13*

08/07/2013

Vladimir Viktorovich KARMANOV

16/10/1980

Russian

Vladimir Regional Court, 6 May 2013

prosecution witnesses “ Volkova ” and “ Moiseyeva ”: anonymous and absent

13437/14*

05/02/2014

Vladimir Nikolayevich GRECHUKHIN

30/12/1988

Russian

Smolensk Regional Court , 15 November 2013

prosecution witness “ Struchev ”: anonymous

74480/14

15/11/2014

Ivan Ivanovich KURILYAK

11/06/1986

Ukrainian

Artur Mansurovich ABDRAKHMANOV

10/06/1989

Russian

Ilya Sergeyevich VLASOV

Moscow City Court, 15 May 2014

prosecution witness “Zhukov”: anonymous and absent

prosecution witnesses Mr D., Mrs K., Mrs Iz ., Mr S., Mr K., Mrs Khl ., Mrs St., Mr Kul ., Mrs Khaf .: absent

74812/14*

19/11/2014

Dzhamalutdin Arsenovich EBUYEV

16/12/1991

Russian

Rafik Afdandil Ogly ALLAKHVERDIYEV

Volgograd Regional Court, 30 June 2014

prosecution witness “Purchaser”: anonymous and absent