Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 30.07.2009 «Дело Ананьев (Ananyev) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF ANANYEV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 20292/04)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 30.VII.2009)

--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Ananyev v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Nina {Vajic} <*>, President,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 July 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 20292/04) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Mr Sergey Mikhaylovich Ananyev ("the applicant"), on 22 April 2004.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms O. Preobrazhenskaya and Ms K. Moskalenko, lawyers practising in Moscow. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev and Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had not been present or represented at the trial hearing and had not been represented at the appeal hearing, in violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention.
4. On 13 September 2006 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
5. The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having examined the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it.

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

6. The applicant was born in 1965 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Smolensk region.

A. First trial and ensuing appeal proceedings

7. On 22 December 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. Subsequently he was committed to stand trial by the Glinkovskiy District Court of the Smolensk Region. The trial was fixed for 22 July 2003.
8. In the morning of 22 July 2003 the applicant had a talk with legal-aid counsel appointed to represent him. He was dissatisfied with the result of that discussion and so refused counsel's services in writing.
9. The first witness on the stand was the applicant's sister. The applicant had an altercation with her and the judge ordered that he be escorted out of the room.
10. The applicant was brought back into the courtroom to make his final submissions. After that the judge declared the trial at an end and announced that the verdict would be handed down on 24 July 2003.
11. On 24 July 2003 the judge delivered the judgment, finding the applicant guilty of murder and sentencing him to fifteen years' imprisonment in a high-security colony.
12. On 28 July 2003 the applicant filed grounds of appeal. He submitted, in particular, that the entire trial had been

> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9