eedings as a whole, the Court does not consider that the Government have been placed at any disadvantage {vis-a-vis} the applicant. Finally, the Court has an interest in ensuring that the proceedings are not unnecessarily protracted.
88. The Court concludes that the Government were able to present their position on the case in its entirety. It may thus proceed with the examination of the case.
3. Whether the applicant waived his right
to legal assistance
89. The Government considered that the applicant had waived his right under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention. It is suggested that Ms A. should be regarded as the applicant's representative from the time of her appointment by the Supreme Court. The Government argued that, as the applicant's representative, Ms A. should have asked for a replacement lawyer or for a private meeting with the applicant, which she had not done. They treated this as an implicit waiver.
90. The Court reiterates that neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 6 of the Convention prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, entitlement to the guarantees of a fair trial (see Talat {Tunc} v. Turkey, No. 32432/96, § 59, 27 March 2007). However, such a waiver must be established unequivocally and must not run counter to any important public interest (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], No. 56581/00, § 86, ECHR 2006-II).
91. The Court notes that the applicant is a lay person and has no legal training (see, mutatis mutandis, Cooke v. Austria, No. 25878/94, § 43, 8 February 2000 with further references to Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, Series A No. 268-B). He was unaware of Ms A.'s appointment and eventually refused her services for the very reason that he perceived her participation in the proceedings as a mere formality. He made his position known to the Supreme Court as best he could. The applicant should not be required to suffer the consequences of Ms A.'s passive attitude when one of the key elements of his complaint is precisely her passivity. Accordingly, the inaction of Ms A. cannot be regarded as a waiver.
92. The Government emphasised that the applicant had refused to accept Ms A.'s services but had not asked to be assigned somebody else as a lawyer. Neither had he asked for additional time to meet the court-appointed lawyer or to find a lawyer of his own choosing. Again, the Court notes that in that context the applicant could not be expected to take procedural steps which normally require some legal knowledge and skills. The applicant did what an ordinary person would do in his situation: he expressed his dissatisfaction with the manner in which legal assistance was organised by the Supreme Court. In such circumstances, the applicant's failure to formulate more specific claims cannot count as a waiver either.
93. The Court, like the Chamber (see § 51 of the judgment), finds that the applicant's conduct, as well as the inaction of Ms A., did not absolve the authorities from their obligation to take further steps to guarantee the effectiveness of his defence.
4. Whether the applicant received effective legal
assistance at the hearing of 29 November 2007
(a) General principles
94. The requirements of Article 6 § 3 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1, and therefore the applicant's complaints under paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 6 should be examined together (see Vacher v. France, 17 December 1996, § 22, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI).
95. The Court reiterates that while Article 6 § 3 (c) confers on everyone charged with a criminal offence the right to "defend himself in person or through legal assistance...", it does not specify the manner of exercising this right. It thus leaves t
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 ... 19 20 21
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
