KERIMOV proti Rusku

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KERIMOV v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 56326/18)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

26 March 2026

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

In the case of Kerimov v. Russia,

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

Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,
Mateja Đurović,
Vasilka Sancin, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 5 March 2026,

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

• PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 16 November 2018.

2. The applicant was represented by Ms I. Khrunova, a lawyer practising in Kazan.

3. The application was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

• THE FACTS

4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

5. The applicant complained of unfair trial in the criminal proceedings against him, in particular because of the absence of an opportunity to examine in court a witness, whose testimony played a significant role in securing his conviction. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

• THE LAW
  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 application (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).

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

7. The applicant complained principally of unfair trial in the criminal proceedings against him, in particular because of the absence of an opportunity to examine in court witness M. who had testified against him. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention.

8. The general principles to be applied in cases where a prosecution witness did not attend the trial and his statements previously made by him were admitted as evidence are well-established in the Court’s case law (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015). In Schatschaschwili, the Court found a violation on account of the authorities’ failure to provide the applicant with an opportunity to have the two key prosecution witnesses examined at any stage of the proceedings (ibid., §§ 161-65).

9. Turning to the circumstances of the present case and having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of this complaint. Even leaving open the question as to whether there were good reasons for the key witness’s non-attendance, it considers that the fact that the applicant was not provided with an opportunity to cross-examine that witness weighs heavily in the balance in the examination of the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings against him. The Court also takes into account that there is nothing in the materials in its possession to suggest that there was any effort on the part of the national judicial authorities to make use of any counterbalancing measures to compensate for the difficulties experienced by the applicant on account of the admission of the witness M.’s untested statements as evidence.

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

3. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

11. The applicant submitted another complaint which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the light of its findings in Sakit Zahidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 51164/07, 12 November 2015, and Borisov v. Russia [Committee], no. 48105/17, 9 July 2019, concerning domestic courts’ failure to address the applicant’s arguments as regards the quality of evidence obtained during his bodily search.

4. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12. 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 case.

• FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the present application as it relates to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
2. Declares the application admissible;
3. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention on account of the absence of an opportunity to examine in court the witness, whose testimony played a significant role in securing the applicant’s conviction;
4. Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 March 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh

Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

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

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