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

9;s trial took place shortly after the entry into force of the new CCP.
45. Having regard to its findings in paragraphs 38 - 44 above, the Court concludes that the proceedings before the Orenburg Regional Court fell short of the requirements of fairness. There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention.

II. Other alleged violations of the Convention

46. Lastly, the applicant complained under Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention that the two days of his detention in July 2002 had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, because police officers had humiliated him, and under Article 6 that the domestic courts had incorrectly assessed the evidence in his case and had refused to summon certain witnesses on his behalf.
47. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within the Court's competence, it finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

48. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
49. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Declares the complaints concerning the applicant's absence from the appeal hearing on 19 December 2002 and the authorities' failure to provide him with a legal aid counsel admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 April 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Christos ROZAKIS
President

{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar

> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8