Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.04.2010 «Дело Синичкин (Sinichkin) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF SINICHKIN v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 20508/03)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 8.IV.2010)

--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Sinichkin v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} <*> Nielsen, Section Registrar,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Having deliberated in private on 18 March 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 20508/03) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Mr Andrey Vladimirovich Sinichkin ("the applicant"), on 12 May 2003.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 29 May 2006 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
4. The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having examined the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it.

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

5. The applicant was born in 1970 and is serving a prison sentence in correctional colony YuK-25/8 in the Orenburg Region.
6. On 24 June 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated concerted robbery and taken to the Leninskiy District police station of the Orsk town police department. He refused legal assistance, signed a record confirming his refusal and denied the accusations made. He was released on the same day.
7. On 22 July 2002 the applicant was again remanded in custody. He was charged with aggravated robbery and questioned after he had refused legal assistance. Police officers allegedly threatened and humiliated him with a view to extracting a confession from him. The applicant did not confess. Two days later he was released on a written undertaking not to leave the town.
8. On 23 July 2002 the local bar association appointed counsel M. to represent the applicant in the criminal proceedings. It appears that M. was appointed to represent the applicant as legal-aid counsel.
9. On 31 October 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Orsk started examining the applicant's criminal case. On the same day the applicant lodged a written request with the trial court, by which he declined the services of M. and sought leave to represent himself. He explained that it was a voluntary decision and had not been caused by financial difficulties. M. submitted to the court that he agreed with the applicant's request. Having discussed the issue, the court allowed the applicant's request and granted him leave to represent himself.
10. By a judgment of 10 November 2002, the District Court found the applicant gu

> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8