Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 30.07.2009 «Дело Евгений Корнев (Yevgeniy Kornev) против России» [англ.]

se was made. The Government also noted that, firstly, the State was not required to provide a perfectly functioning postal system (see Zagorodnikov v. Russia, No. 66941/01, § 31, 7 June 2007, and, mutatis mutandis, Foley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 39197/98, 11 September 2001) and that, in any event, the applicant failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available to him. He did not make a supervisory-review complaint against the judgment of 20 October 2003.
55. The applicant maintained his complaint.

A. Admissibility

56. The Court notes the Government's argument that the applicant has failed to exhaust domestic remedies by failing to apply for supervisory review of the judgment rendered by the Presidium of the Kurgan Regional Court on 20 October 2003. In this connection, the Court reiterates that an application for supervisory review is not a remedy to be exhausted under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), No. 31697/03, 29 January 2004). Therefore, the Government's objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed.
57. 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.

B. Merits

1. General principles

58. The general principles concerning the right of the accused to participate in the hearing and waiver of the right to appear are well established in the Court's case-law and have been summarised as follows (see Hermi v. Italy [GC], No. 18114/02, ECHR 2006-...):
"58. In the interests of a fair and just criminal process it is of capital importance that the accused should appear at his trial (see Lala v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A No. 297-A, p. 13, § 33; Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A No. 277-A, p. 15, § 35; and De Lorenzo v. Italy (dec.), No. 69264/01, 12 February 2004), and the duty to guarantee the right of a criminal defendant to be present in the courtroom - either during the original proceedings or in a retrial - ranks as one of the essential requirements of Article 6 (see Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, No. 9808/02, § 56, 24 March 2005)...
60. However, the personal attendance of the defendant does not take on the same crucial significance for an appeal hearing as it does for the trial hearing (see Kamasinski, cited above, p. 44, § 106)...
62. ... even where the court of appeal has jurisdiction to review the case both as to facts and as to law, Article 6 does not always require a right to a public hearing, still less a right to appear in person (see Fejde v. Sweden, judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A No. 212-C, p. 68, § 31). In order to decide this question, regard must be had, among other considerations, to the specific features of the proceedings in question and to the manner in which the applicant's interests were actually presented and protected before the appellate court, particularly in the light of the nature of the issues to be decided by it (see Helmers v. Sweden, judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A No. 212-A, p. 15, §§ 31 - 32) and of their importance to the appellant (see Kremzow, cited above, p. 43, § 59; Kamasinski, cited above, pp. 44 - 45, § 106 in fine; and Ekbatani, cited above, p. 13, §§ 27 - 28)...
64. However, where an appellate court has to examine a case as to the facts and the law and make a full assessment of the issue of guilt or innocence, it cannot determine the issue without a direct assessment of the evidence given in person by the accused for the purpose of proving that he did not commit the act allegedly constituting a criminal offence (see Dondarini v. San Marino, No. 50545/99, § 27, 6 July 2004)...
73. Neith

> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 9 ... 10