Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.02.2010 «Дело Александр Зайченко (Aleksandr Zaichenko) против России» [англ.]

the applicant had been apprised of Article 51 of the Constitution. While it is not the Court's role to examine whether the evidence in the present case was correctly assessed by the national courts, the Court considers that the conviction was based on the applicant's self-incriminating statements. The Court finds it regrettable that the courts did not provide sufficient reasons for dismissing the applicant's arguments challenging the admissibility of the pre-trial statements, especially in the light of the weakness of the other evidence presented by the prosecution at the trial. It was, however, the prosecution's obligation under Russian law to prove the offence of theft on the strength of the other evidence because the CCrP required that a defendant's admission of guilt in the commission of an offence could be used as a basis for criminal charges only if his or her culpability was confirmed by the totality of evidence collected in the case (see paragraph 28 above). The Court cannot but observe that two of the witnesses presented by the prosecution only confirmed the fact of the car inspection and the seizure of the fuel. A third person only testified on the circumstances which were capable of clarifying the reasons for and the purpose of the above inspection.
59. The Court further observes that, contrary to the applicant's allegation, it follows from the trial record that the trial court examined witnesses on behalf of the applicant. However, it rejected their testimony as unreliable on account of the witnesses' close relationship with the applicant. Lastly, it is also noted that the court refused to accept in evidence the invoice which would allegedly exculpate the applicant (see, by contrast, Bykov, cited above, §§ 95 et seq.; and Heglas v. the Czech Republic, No. 5935/02, §§ 89 and 90, 1 March 2007). Thus, the Court concludes that the trial court based the conviction of the applicant on the statement that he had given to the police without being informed of his right to not incriminate himself.
60. In the light of the above considerations, given the particular circumstances of the present case and taking the proceedings as a whole, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

61. 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."

A. Damage

62. The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
63. The Government considered that the applicant's claim concerned only non-pecuniary damage and was unsubstantiated.
64. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, making its assessment on an equitable basis, and having regard to the nature of the violation found, the Court awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
65. The Court also reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite an infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position that he would have been in had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if so requested by the person concerned (see {Ocalan} [GC], cited above, § 210, and Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, No. 41461/02, § 118, 24 July 2008)

> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 13