IJ №3 (27) 2018
The issue of unreasonable closed trials in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights: case comments to judgments in Chaushev and Others v. Russia (25 October 2016) and Lambin v. Russia (21 November 2017)

Abstract
This article provides commentary on two judgements of the European Court of Human Rights on the decision of Russian courts to hold court proceedings in closed regimes. The article considers the factual allegations and shows that the ECtHR has dealt with these issues before. The ECtHR has stated that public and open hearings guarantee public confidence in the courts, and that a public hearing is a condition of a fair trial. Restrictions on publicity and closed trials are allowed only when provided for by law. The closed trial in the case of Chaushev and others v. Russia was not based on any accompanying law, and could have been explained by political motives. The closed trial in the case of Lambina v. Russia also was not based on law, but was explained to be a mistake. The ECtHR recognized that in both situations sec.6, pt.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights was violated. The main conclusion of this article is that the legal proceedings for serious and dangerous crimes require publicity and openness no less than any other legal proceedings. A court’s openness in these situations is one of the factors of trust in justice. In this specific situation, at issue was trust in the court from residences of the Caucasus region (which the ECtHR mentioned in its judgement). A court’s decision to hold the legal proceedings in a closed regime without any argument and appeal to the law could be perceived by residences of the region as a testimony of the political dependency of the court. Thusly, it is unlikely that the closed nature of a court that tried individuals who were accused of terrorism added any authority to the court’s verdicts.

About the author
Ilya Shablinsky – Doctor of Sciences in Law, Professor, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia.

Citation
Shablinsky I. (2018) Vopros o neobosnovannom provedenii zakrytykh sudebnykh zasedaniy v resheniyakh Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka: kommentariy k postanovleniyam ot 25 oktyabrya 2016 goda po delu Chaushev i drugie protiv Rossii (zhaloby N37037/03, 39053/03 i 2469/04) i ot 21 noyabrya 2017 goda po delu Lambin protiv Rossii (zhaloba N12668/08) [The issue of unreasonable closed trials in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights: case comments to judgments in Chaushev and Others v. Russia (25 October 2016) and Lambin v. Russia (21 November 2017)]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.8, no.3, pp.3–13. (In Russian).

References

Anosova L.S. (2009) Sootnoshenie ponyatiy glasnosti, otkrytosti i transpa­rentnosti sudoproizvodstva: konstitutsionno-pravovye aspekty [The correlation of the notions of openness and transparency of trials: constitutional and legal aspects]. Konstitutsionnoe i munitsipal’noe pravo, no.21, pp.25–30. (In Russian).

Bezlepkin B.T. (2017) Kommentariy k Ugolovno-protsessual’nomu kodeksu Rossiyskoy Federatsii(postateynyy) [Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (article-by-article)], 14th ed., Moscow: Prospekt.

Dikarev I.S. (2012) Sootnoshenie printsipov publichnosti i sostyazatel’nosti v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Correlation of the principles of publicity and competition in criminal proceedings]. Gosudarstvo i pravo, no.5, pp.88–95. (In Russian).

Dobrovlyanina O.V. (2015) Pravovoe regulirovanie glasnosti sudebnogo razbiratel’stva v rossiyskom ugolovnom protsesse [The legal regulation of the publicity of trials in Russian criminal law] // Aktual’nye problemy rossiyskogo prava, no.1, pp.148–154. (In Russian).

Fomenko E.G. (2006) Printsip publichnosti grazhdanskogo protsessa: istoki i sovremennost’: Dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [The principle of publicity in civil procedure: the origin and modernity: Cand. legal sci. diss.], Tomsk. (In Russian).

Khuzina N.A. (2015) Printsip publichnosti v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve i reabilitatsiya [The principle of publicity in criminal proceedings and rehabilitation]. Sudebnaya vlast’ i ugolovnyy protsess, no.4, pp.75–78. (In Russian).

Nussberger A. (2018) Terrorizm i prava cheloveka: o pravoprimenitel’noy praktike Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka [Terrorism and human rights: on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.1, pp.67–78. (In Russian).

Prikhod’ko I.A. (2005) Dostupnost’ pravosudiya v arbitrazhnom i grazhdanskom protsesse: osnovnye problemy [The accessibility of justice in arbitration and civil procedure: main problems], Saint-Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo yuridicheskogo fakul’teta Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. (In Russian).

Vdovina E.I. (2011) Printsip glasnosti v grazhdanskom protsesse: Dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [The principle of openness in civil procedure: Cand. legal sci. diss.], Moscow. (In Russian).

Issue articles