Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 02.09.2010 <Дело Сергей Тимофеев (Sergey Timofeyev) против России» [англ.]

also asked if the court was equipped with facilities to enable wheelchair access.
59. On 30 September 2003 the Rostov Regional Court decided to reject the applicant's request to adjourn the appeal hearing. It referred to the applicant's serious state of health, and the legislative rule that the appeal court must start examination of an appeal no later than one month after it has been lodged.
60. On the same day the Rostov Regional Court examined the case on appeal. The court heard submissions by the judge rapporteur and prosecutor, but the applicant's counsel was not present at the hearing. The judgment of 28 February 2003 was upheld.
61. On 20 February 2004 the Rostov Regional Court rejected the applicant's request for supervisory review proceedings. With respect to the applicant's complaint about examination of the case on appeal in his absence the court found that the applicant had failed to appear "for a far-fetched reason".

II. Relevant domestic law

The Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP)

62. An appeal court examines appeals with a view to verifying the lawfulness, validity and fairness of first-instance judgments (Article 373).
63. An appeal court must start the examination of an appeal no later than one month after its receipt (Article 374).
64. An appeal court can directly examine evidence, including additional material submitted by parties (Article 377 §§ 4 and 5).
65. An appeal court may (a) uphold a first-instance judgment; (b) quash it and terminate criminal proceedings; (c) quash it and remit the case for a fresh examination in the first-instance; and (d) amend the judgment (Article 378 § 1).

THE LAW

I. Alleged violations of Article 6 of the Convention

66. The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been excessively long and that that the appeal court had held the hearing in his absence. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which in its relevant parts reads as follows:
"1. In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by a... tribunal."

A. The parties' submissions

1. The Government

67. The Government contested the applicant's arguments. They claimed at the outset that the applicant had filled in the application form on 2 June 2004, although 10 March 2004 had been mentioned as the date of introduction of the application. They emphasised that the proceedings against the applicant had ended on 30 September 2003, that is more than six months before 2 June 2004, and concluded that the application had been lodged out of time.
68. Furthermore, the Government claimed that the applicant had had the right to attend an appeal hearing but he had not been obliged to do so. The applicant had requested the Rostov Regional Court to reschedule hearings on three occasions although he had not been in hospital on the dates of those hearings. Accordingly, the applicant had lied that he was in hospital when requesting that hearings be postponed. The Rostov Regional Court had taken all necessary and lawful measures to ensure the applicant's attendance at an appeal hearing. The applicant's retained lawyer had been duly informed of the date and time of the hearing of 30 September 2003: first, he had been present at the hearing of 26 August 2003 when it had been decided to postpone the examination of the appeal until 30 September 2003; secondly, the Rostov Regional Court had notified the lawyer of the date of a new hearing by a letter of 27 August 2003. The lawyer had not attended the hearing of 30 September 2003 for unknown reasons; he had not requested that it be postponed. In his supervisory review request the l

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 7 8 9