Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.12.2009 «Дело Шилбергс (Shilbergs) против России» [англ.]

ived him of the opportunity to present his case effectively before the courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Yakovlev v. Russia, No. 72701/01, §§ 19 et seq., 15 March 2005; Groshev v. Russia, No. 69889/01, §§ 27 et seq., 20 October 2005; and Mokrushina v. Russia, No. 23377/02, § 22, 5 October 2006).
111. Having made this finding, the Court still considers it necessary to address the other aspect referred to, pertaining to the nature of the applicant's claims in the two sets of proceedings concerning the conditions of his detention. The Court does not lose sight of the fact that the applicant's claims in those two sets of proceedings were, to a large extent, based on his personal experience. In such circumstances, the Court is not convinced that even the representative's appearance before the courts could have secured the effective, proper and satisfactory presentation of the applicant's case. The Court finds that the applicant's testimony describing the conditions of his detention, of which only the applicant himself had first-hand knowledge, would have constituted an indispensable part of the plaintiff's presentation of the case (see Kovalev, cited above, § 37, and, by contrast, Kozlov v. Russia (dec.), No. 30782/03, 17 September 2009). Only the applicant himself could describe the conditions and answer the judges' questions, if any. The Court's finding to this effect is supported by the Neman Town Court's decision of 20 August 2003 authorising the applicant's transfer to the courthouse (see paragraph 22 above). In particular, the Town Court reasoned that it was necessary to hear evidence from the applicant in person. However, the Court considers it odd that despite a direct order from the Town Court requiring the applicant to be brought to the hearing, the management of the correctional colony refused to comply, relying on their own assessment of the domestic legal norms (see paragraph 23 above). Even more striking is the fact that following the colony management's refusal to ensure the applicant's presence, the Town Court, having failed to take any steps to discipline the management, cited its refusal in response to the applicant's subsequent request to be brought to a hearing (see paragraph 24 above).
112. In conclusion, the Court finds that the principle of equality of arms was not observed in the three sets of civil proceedings under consideration, owing to the domestic courts' repeated refusal to secure the applicant's attendance at the proceedings concerning the conditions of his detention and their failure to ensure the effective representation of his interests in the proceedings pertaining to the defamation action.
113. There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
(b) Failure to serve documents on the applicant
114. In addition, the parties disputed whether the applicant had been served with copies of materials presented by the defendant to the Tsentralniy District Court in the proceedings concerning the conditions of detention in facility No. IZ-39/1. In this connection the Court reiterates its finding that the fairness of that set of civil proceedings was undermined by the applicant's absence from the hearings before the domestic courts (see paragraph 112 above). The Court therefore considers it unnecessary to examine separately whether the fairness of the proceedings was also breached by the domestic courts' alleged failure to communicate to the applicant the complete set of documents submitted by the defendant (see {Komanicky} v. Slovakia, No. 32106/96, § 56, 4 June 2002, and Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, No. 41461/02, § 107, 24 July 2008).

IV. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
on account of the absence of legal assistance on appeal
in the applicant's criminal case

115. The applica

> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22 23 ... 24 25