Communicated on 15 December 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 80251/13
Aleksey Vladimirovich NIKOTIN
against Russia
lodged on 7 October 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Aleksey Vladimirovich Nikotin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1984 and is serving a prison sentence in Rubtsovsk, Altai Region. He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Larionov, a lawyer practising in Barnaul.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 2 March 2011 the applicant was arrested.
On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with extortion and murder of Vos. It appears that he remained in custody pending investigation and trial.
On an unspecified date a trial by jury was opened in the applicant’s case in the Altai Regional Court.
On an unspecified date the jury returned a guilty verdict against the applicant and three other defendants.
By the judgment of 17 May 2012 the Regional Court sentenced the applicant to nineteen years’ imprisonment.
On 6 September 2012 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the verdict on appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the trial court.
On 30 January 2013 the jury returned a guilty verdict against the applicant and three other defendants.
On 19 February 2013 juror V. made a statement addressed to the trial judge. She alleged that Ch., Vos.’s mother, had repeatedly talked to the jurors during the adjournments. Ch. had informed the jurors that it was the second trial and that the applicant and other defendants had already been found guilty of her son’s murder. Ch. had also advised the jurors to check out the information concerning her son’s murder on Internet. V. had done so and, as a result, had been influenced by this information when finding the defendants guilty.
On 27 February 2013 the Regional Court sentenced the applicant to nineteen years’ imprisonment.
On 28 February 2013 the trial judge asked the bailiffs’ service to conduct an inquiry in response to the statement made by juror V.
On 18 March 2013 the deputy head of the bailiffs’ service responded to the trial judge as follows:
“It follows from the reports submitted by the bailiffs ... and the bailiffs’ group supervisor that on relevant dates the jurors were supervised by the bailiff ... while they were in the courtroom or in the jurors’ room. None of the jurors contacted [the bailiffs’s service] as regards the [jurors’] security or interference with the fulfilment of the jury’s duties.”
On 8 August 2013 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. As regards the applicant’s argument that Ch. had exerted undue influence on the jury, the court stated as follows:
“[The court] rejects as unsubstantiated the argument ... that the verdict was delivered by jury ... as a result of unlawful influence exerted by Ch.
According to the trial record, the jury members were selected in compliance with the requirements set out in [the rules of criminal procedure].
The materials in the case-file show that ... Ch. did not exert undue influence on the jurors.
[The court] discerns no violations of the rules of criminal procedure, including those alleged by [the defendants], that would justify the quashing of the verdict.”
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair. In particular, he alleges that victim Ch. exerted undue influence on the jury.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Was the Altai Regional Court when determining the criminal charge against the applicant impartial as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, §§ 73‑78, ECHR 2015, and Remli v. France, 23 April 1996, §§ 47-48, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑II)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy