Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.01.2009 «Дело Шаромов (Sharomov) против России» [англ.]

riminal Procedure. According to Article 377 thereof, a supervisory-instance court had to decide whether the convict's and/or his counsel's presence was necessary at the hearing. If that presence was necessary, the attending persons had to be served with a copy of the supervisory review request. The Constitutional Court's ruling of 14 February 2000 on Article 377 of the Code only concerned supervisory review requests which would be prejudicial to a convict's position (see paragraph 22 above). On the contrary, the supervisory review proceedings were favourable to the applicant in the present case. Both sets of the review proceedings had been instituted in his interest and resulted in the reduction of his sentence and a favourable amendment of the prison regime. The applicant's or his counsel's presence at the hearings had not been necessary because all relevant arguments were fully presented in the supervisory review requests.
33. The applicant maintained his complaint.

A. Admissibility

34. Regarding the complaint in respect of the hearing on 2 December 2002, the Court notes that it was raised in substance on 16 January 2003, that is within the six-month time-limit.
35. The Court also observes that it was the applicant himself who had solicited the supervisory review of his conviction and sentence, and that the outcome of those proceedings was favourable to him (see paragraphs 7 - 9 above). The applicant alleged procedural violations in the supervisory review proceedings and did not complain that the principle of legal certainty had been breached as such (see, by contrast, Fadin v. Russia, No. 58079/00, § 34, 27 July 2006, and Bratyakin v. Russia (dec.), No. 72776/01, 9 March 2006).
36. Furthermore, in so far as the respondent Government may be understood to plead that the applicant is no longer a victim of the alleged violation of his procedural rights, the Court reiterates that following annulment of a conviction or termination of the proceedings against an applicant, he or she can no longer be considered a victim, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of a breach of his or her right to a fair trial in connection with these proceedings (see {Ustun} v. Turkey, No. 37685/02, § 26, 10 May 2007, and Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, No. 61507/00, § 98, 26 July 2007). However, the mere fact that the applicant solicited a supervisory review which eventually ended with a partially favourable outcome does not deprive him of victim status in respect of the alleged violation of his procedural rights in the review proceedings (see, in a similar context, Vanyan v. Russia, No. 53203/99, §§ 23 - 25, 15 December 2005). The applicant sought supervisory review on larger grounds than those relied upon by the President of the Regional Court in 2001 and by the prosecution in their 2002 request. He also explicitly referred to the power of a supervisory review court to carry out a full review of the case.
37. Hence, the Court considers that the applicant can claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of his procedural rights under Article 6 of the Convention and that he has not lost victim status in respect of it.
38. The Court concludes that the complaints about the alleged violation of the applicant's procedural rights in the 2001 and 2002 supervisory-review proceedings are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

39. The Court has already found a violation of the fairness requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the cases where the supervisory review courts adopted a different legal categorisation of the applicants' actions without summoning them to supervisory review hearings or affording t

> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8 ... 9