Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2019 - 27870/12

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.

Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2019 - 27870/12

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, except for application no. 22877/13 Seleverstov v. Russia which is out on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as well as the accessory complaints of all the applicants except for Mr Seleverstov and Mr Borsov (applications nos. 22877/13 and 39177/13 respectively) under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, complaints of Ms Mikhaylova and Ms Gorbaneva (applications nos. 27870/12 and 50665/12 respectively) under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention and complaints of Mr Ananenko (application no. 2935/13) under Articles 3 and 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, which were not communicated to the Government, and thus must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.