Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 04.03.2010 «Дело Мохов (Mokhov) против России» [англ.]

uilt is proved according to the rules fixed by the federal law and confirmed by the sentence of a court which has come into legal force.
21. Article 151 of the Russian Civil Code provides that compensation for non-pecuniary damage is payable only when physical or moral damage has been inflicted on a person through actions which violate his or her rights.
22. By virtue of Articles 58 and 184 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure, a court may hold a session outside the courthouse if, for instance, it is necessary to examine evidence which cannot be brought to the courthouse.
23. On several occasions the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has examined complaints by convicted persons whose requests for leave to appear in civil proceedings had been refused by courts. It has consistently declared the complaints inadmissible, finding that the contested provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Penitentiary Code did not, as such, restrict the convicted person's access to court. It has emphasised, nonetheless, that the convicted person should be able to make submissions to the civil court, either through a representative or in any other way provided by law. If necessary, the hearing may be held at the location where the convicted person is serving his or her sentence or, alternatively, the court hearing the case may instruct the court having territorial jurisdiction over the correctional colony to obtain the applicant's submissions or carry out any other procedural steps (decisions No. 478-O of 16 October 2003, No. 335-O of 14 October 2004, and No. 94-O of 21 February 2008).

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention

24. The applicant complained that his right to benefit from the presumption of innocence had been breached. He relied on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, as well as on Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Court considers that his complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."

A. The parties' submissions

25. The Government contested the applicant's argument. They claimed that the presumption of innocence had not been breached in the applicant's criminal case. The information disseminated by the investigator on the TV show could not be considered libellous because the applicant had been convicted by a final judgment for the acts described by the investigator. By the time that the show had been broadcast, a bill of indictment had been drawn up in respect of the applicant, charging him with the crimes referred to by the investigator, which could not be done until sufficient evidence of the applicant's guilt had been collected. The investigator had had a right to disseminate information about the course of the investigation as he had seen fit. The final judgment of 4 February 2004 established that the investigator had only disseminated that part of the information about the investigation that he had been entitled to disseminate. In sum, they concluded that the applicant's complaint under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention was manifestly ill-founded.
26. The applicant maintained his complaint.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

27. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

28. The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 2, in its relevant aspect, is aimed at preventing the undermining of a fair criminal

> 1 2 3 4 ... 6 7 8