Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 02.11.2010 «Дело Сахновский (Sakhnovskiy) против России» [англ.]

he violation complained of by the applicant.
71. In the context of the criminal-limb guarantees of Article 6, full acquittal or discontinuation of the proceedings against the applicant have been regarded as appropriate redress (see, for example, Carboni v. Italy (dec.), No. 51554/99, 12 February 2004; {Ustun} v. Turkey, No. 37685/02, 10 May 2007, § 24; and Oleksy v. Poland (dec.), No. 1379/06, 16 June 2009). However, this is the case when an applicant is no longer affected and has been relieved of any effects to his disadvantage. An applicant can maintain his victim status if he has already served all or part of his sentence and no compensation has been offered or is available for the alleged violation (see, for example, Hooper v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 42317/98, 21 October 2003; Menesheva v. Russia (dec.), No. 59261/00, 15 January 2004; and Arat, cited above, §§ 46 - 47). In the case of Freimanis and {Lidums}, cited above, which concerned the question whether the case had been heard by a "tribunal established by law", the Court took into account the persistence of adverse consequences for the applicants after a decision to quash a conviction and remit the case for fresh consideration (§ 68). The Court noted (in §§ 71 - 72) that the applicants did not complain about the unfairness of the new set of the proceedings, and the case was re-examined by a newly composed tribunal, which had this time been created in accordance with the law. In such circumstances the Court concluded that the defects of the previous proceedings had been remedied after the reopening.
(b) The Court's case-law in Russian cases
72. There are two groups of cases concerning Russia which treat the issue of "victim status" in criminal proceedings differently. In the first group, the Court has accepted the reopening of criminal proceedings as a form of redress in itself. Thus, the Government referred to the case of Ponushkov, cited above, where the Court had held, in a similar situation, as follows:
"70. In the instant case, the Presidium of the Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged that the applicant's right to free legal representation at the hearing before the appeal court had been infringed, quashed the appeal judgment of 29 January 2004 and ordered a new appeal hearing.
71. Therefore, having regard to the contents of the Presidium's decision of 1 March 2006, the Court finds that the national authorities have acknowledged, and then afforded redress for, the alleged breach of the Convention."
A similar line of reasoning was employed by the Court in the case of Ryabov, cited above, where it held:
"51. ...Having regard to the contents of the Presidium's decision of 1 March 2006 and the appeal judgment of 19 July 2006 which indicated that a new trial should be held, the Court finds that the national authorities have acknowledged, and then afforded redress for, the alleged breach of the Convention."
The Court came to this conclusion despite the fact that the proceedings against the applicant were still pending, and there was no certainty that the defect complained of would be remedied during the retrial.
73. The second group of cases is consonant with the findings of the Chamber in the case at hand. For example, the case of Fedosov, referred to by the Government in support of their submissions, reflects the Chamber's position in the present case. In that case the Court did take into account the second set of the proceedings:
"Having regard to the content of the judgment of 28 September 2005 [by the supervisory review instance], the subsequent retrial before the Troitsk Town Court and the mitigation of the sentence, the Court finds that the national authorities have acknowledged, and then afforded redress for the alleged breach of the Convention."
That decision suggests that, besides a retrial compatible with all the requir



> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 19 20 21

	Поделиться:	Tweet