Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.07.2010 <Дело Владимир Кривоносов (Vladimir Krivonosov) против России» [англ.]

present case did not satisfy the "reasonable time" requirement.
154. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
155. In so far as the applicant's complaint about the lack of an effective domestic remedy is concerned, the Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see {Kudla}, cited above, § 156). It notes that the Government did not indicate any remedy that could have expedited the determination of the applicant's case or provided him with adequate redress for delays that had already occurred (see Sidorenko v. Russia, No. 4459/03, § 39, 8 March 2007, and Klyakhin, cited above, §§ 100 - 01). In particular, the Government did not explain how applications to the judiciary qualification board, the prosecutor's office or the Rostov Regional Court that the applicant could have made in the course of the criminal proceedings could have expedited those proceedings.
156. Accordingly, the Court considers that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of a remedy under domestic law whereby the applicant could have obtained a ruling upholding his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time, as set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

VI. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
on account of absence of legal representation at the initial
stages of the proceedings

157. The applicant complained that he had been denied legal advice at the initial stages of the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, which read as follows:
"1. In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal...
...
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
...
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require."

A. Submissions by the parties

158. The Government submitted that the applicant's complaint should be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded, because he had had the opportunity to seek legal advice from the moment the charges were brought against him on 21 December 1998 and throughout the trial.
159. The applicant submitted that the domestic authorities had been under an obligation to provide him with legal assistance from the very start of the criminal proceedings.

B. The Court's assessment

160. The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention does not guarantee a free-standing right to legal assistance at the preliminary stage of a police investigation, yet this provision, read in the context of the general guarantees of Article 6 § 1, may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its provisions (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 36, Series A No. 275). The question, in each case, is whether the restriction on the right to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer, in the light of the entirety of the proceedings, has deprived the accused of a fair hearing (see John Murray v. the United Kingdom, 8 February 1996, § 63, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I; Brennan v. the United Kingdom, No. 39846/98, § 45, ECHR 2001-X; and Magee v. the United Kingdom, No. 28135/95, § 44, ECHR 2000-VI).
161. The Court further reiterates that the rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminati

> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22 23 ... 24