an extent compatible with Article 6 of the Convention (see Artico v. Italy, judgment of 13 May 1980, § 36, Series A No. 37, and Balliu v. Albania, No. 74727/01, §§ 35 - 38, 16 June 2005). This was not so in the present case.
74. Moreover, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Court finds that the applicant was not promptly informed of the date and time of the hearing and could not take cognisance of his counsel's submissions filed with the appeal court. Also, as acknowledged by the Government, the applicant was not provided with a copy of the prosecution's written observations in reply to the defence's statements of appeal.
75. Lastly, in the Court's opinion, it can be accepted that a telegram containing the notification about the hearing was sent to counsel several days in advance and that the prosecution submissions were read out at the hearing. However, the Court considers that in the circumstances mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, the applicant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case.
76. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
77. In view of the above, there is no need to examine separately the remaining allegations made by the applicant in relation to the appeal proceedings.
III. Alleged violations of Article 34 of the Convention
A. Opening and inspection of the letter of 13 July 2004
78. The applicant complained that the opening and inspection by the prison staff of the Court's letter of 13 July 2004 addressed to him and the delay in handing it over to the applicant had been in breach of the State's obligation not to hinder his exercise of the right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention.
79. Article 34 reads as follows:
"The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right."
80. The Government submitted that the applicant had twice refused to have the letter handed to him by the prison staff. The latter had wrongly assumed that, as with other letters, the addressee should have displayed due diligence in receiving correspondence from the European Court. However, there had been no intention to delay that letter. Moreover, thereafter the staff of the prison had been reminded of the special status of correspondence from the European Court and the requirement that it be handed over to detainees immediately. Lastly, the applicant's allegation about the opening and inspection of that letter was unsubstantiated.
81. The applicant contested that he had been required to come to the office in charge of correspondence to receive the letter. The Government had submitted no proof of this assertion. In any event, a refusal on his part would have amounted to a breach of the prison rules. Moreover, the delayed handing over of the letter had been acknowledged by the authorities in their letter of 3 November 2004 (see paragraph 46 above). He added that all letters from the Court, including the letter in question, had been and continued to be opened by the same prison administration. He submitted copies of other letters bearing the stamp of the detention facility, the receipt date and the registration number.
82. The Court notes at the outset that the present complaint is limited to an alleged violation in relation to one letter, that is, the Court's letter of 13 July 2004 addressed to the applicant. As regards its opening and inspection, it is noted that the Russian legislation at the time prohibited the opening and inspection of incoming and outgoing corr
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 13 ... 14
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
