Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 20.05.2010 «Дело Ларин (Larin) против России» [англ.]

in the proceedings (see Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, No. 13470/02, §§ 53 et seq., 23 October 2008).
38. It also found a violation of Article 6 in a case where a Russian court refused leave to appear to an imprisoned applicant who had wished to make oral submissions on his claim that he had been ill-treated by the police. Despite the fact that the applicant in that case was represented by his wife, the Court considered it relevant that his claim had been largely based on his personal experience and that his submissions would therefore have been "an important part of the plaintiff's presentation of the case and virtually the only way to ensure adversarial proceedings" (see Kovalev v. Russia, No. 78145/01, § 37, 10 May 2007). The nature of the dispute was also decisive in the case of Sokur v. Russia (No. 23243/03, 15 October 2009) where the Court held that even if the applicant had appointed a representative, it would not have compensated for his personal absence from the court since the applicant's claims "were, to a major extent, based on his personal experience" (§ 35).
39. In the more recent case of Shilbergs v. Russia (No. 20075/03, 17 December 2009, not yet final), which also concerned a civil action brought by a convicted criminal in respect of the conditions of his detention, the Court held as follows: "Given the obvious difficulties involved in transporting convicted persons from one location to another, the Court can, in principle, accept that in cases where the claim is not based on the plaintiff's personal experiences... representation of the detainee by an advocate would not be in breach of the principle of equality of arms" (§ 106).
40. Having said that, the Court observed that the option of legal aid had not been open to the applicant. In such a situation the only possibility for him had been to appoint a relative, friend or acquaintance to represent him in the proceedings. However, the domestic courts had not enquired whether the applicant had been able to designate a representative. The Court further reiterated that the domestic courts had refused the applicant leave to appear and, at the same time, had not held a session in the applicant's correctional colony.

3. Application to the present case

(a) Hearing of 11 July 2001
41. The Court considers that the nature of the civil dispute is the core element of the case, which should be addressed first.
42. The Court observes that the facts at the heart of the civil dispute were already established in the criminal proceedings in which the applicant had participated personally. The plaintiff (Mr O.) brought one claim: for the car which had been bought from him with counterfeit United States dollars to be returned. He did not ask for damages, nor did he invoke any other provision of Russian law which would necessitate the examination of such facts and legal arguments which had not been examined in the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
43. In such circumstances the Court is prepared to accept that the applicant's personal presence at the hearing had not been strictly necessary. He could have taken part in the proceedings through a representative or by submitting written observations.
44. On the other hand, even though the dispute in issue was quite simple and the applicant had little chance of success in the civil court, that does not mean that he should have been deprived of all his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. As the Court said in the case of Kovalev (cited above, § 37), the exercise of the guarantees inherent in the right to a fair trial cannot depend on the court's giving a preliminary assessment of the claim as potentially successful. In the end, the domestic court accepted the plaintiff's claim and rendered a judgment on the merits; it implied that the civil proceedings had a separate purpose.

> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8 ... 9