Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.09.2010 «Дело Андрей Исаев (Andrey Isayev) против России» [англ.]

deral
Courts of General Jurisdiction in the Russian Federation
of 2 January 2000 ("the Act"), in force between
10 January 2000 and 1 January 2004

23. Section 1 of the Act provided that the Russian citizens were entitled to participate in the administration of justice as lay judges. The lay judges were persons entitled by law to hear civil and criminal cases as part of the court panel and carry out their judicial duties on a non-professional basis.
24. Section 9 of the Act provided that the lay judges could be called to sit in cases heard by a regional court for the whole period of examination of the case and only once a year.

D. Supreme Court's Ruling on selection of lay
judges of 14 January 2000, in force until 5 August 2002

25. The Ruling provided that the sitting lay judges had to remain in office until new lists of lay judges arrived to the court.

E. Presidential Decrees

Decree of 25 December 1993

26. The Decree provided that lay judges serving in the regional courts of general jurisdiction were authorised to remain in office until adoption of the federal law on lay judges.

Decree of 23 January 1997

27. The Decree provided that lay judges serving in the regional courts of general jurisdiction were authorised to remain in office until adoption of a federal law regulating the order of their appointment or election.

Decree of 25 January 2000

28. The Decree provided that lay judges serving in the courts of general jurisdiction were authorised to remain in office until the courts received new lists of lay judges confirmed by a regional legislative assembly.

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
on account of lack of a tribunal established by law

29. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the court that had convicted him on 29 April 2002 had not been a "tribunal established by law" because it had been composed in breach of the relevant national rules. In particular, he alleged that the terms of office of the lay judges G. and Ka. had expired before the trial in his case had started and that the trial court had not been in possession of the list of lay judges at the material time. The relevant part of the provision reads as follows:
"In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."

Admissibility

30. The Government contested the argument. In particular, they submitted that the lay judges G. and Ka. had been elected by the Vladimir Regional Council of People's Deputies during its session in April 1990 to serve for five years. Due to the extension of their terms of office by the three presidential decrees of 1993, 1997 and 2000 they were still in office at the time of consideration of the applicant's case. The new lists of lay judges from the district courts did not arrive at the Vladimir Regional Court until September 2002, that is after the applicant was convicted.
31. To support their statements the Government submitted the decision of the Vladimir Regional Council of People's Deputies of 11 April 1990 that contains the names of the lay judges G. and Ka., as well as their other personal data, a certificate from the Vladimir Regional Court stating that the lay judges G. and Ka. had not taken part in other trials during the period of consideration of the applicant's case, and the decisions of the Vladimir Region legislative assembly validating the lists of lay judges for the district courts of the Vladimir Region with a stamped date of their arrival to t

> 1 2 3 4 5 ... 6