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

of 29 November 2007 as such. The Government acknowledged the importance of the right of the accused to participate effectively in his defence. However, they indicated that the Convention and the Court's case-law did not indicate the manner in which that right should be exercised. Participation in the proceedings through a video link was an acceptable form of participation (see Marcello Viola v. Italy, No. 45106/04, ECHR 2006-XI (extracts), and Golubev v. Russia (dec.), No. 26260/02, 9 November 2006). The transportation of a detainee from the Novosibirsk region to Moscow is a long and costly procedure; in addition, it would have caused the applicant a lot of inconvenience. The Government further claimed that the applicant had not complained about the quality of the video communication, and that it had not limited his ability to participate in the proceedings in any other way.

2. The applicant

(a) Loss of victim status
57. According to the applicant, the Government's contention that the Court should declare the supervisory-review decision a complete and adequate remedy per se, without any consideration of subsequent rehearing, was in direct contradiction with the principles enunciated in the Court's case-law. An upper court decision ordering a rehearing represented, at most, a promise of a correction, but the result - actual correction - could be obtained only in the subsequent proceedings.
58. In the applicant's view, the Government's reading of the Court's case-law was incorrect. None of the cases cited by the Government supported their proposition that an order for rehearing was in itself sufficient redress. On the contrary, the judgments or decisions in five of the above cases (Ponushkov, Fedosov, Babunidze, Gavrilova and Wong) were at odds with the Government's position, while the remaining three (Ryabov, Davidchuk and Nikishina) were so distinguishable from the present case on their facts as to be altogether inapposite.
59. The Chamber was correct in treating the second set of the proceedings as part of the domestic redress for the acknowledged breach of his right to a fair trial in the initial proceedings. This was compatible with the Court's previous case-law, in particular in the case of Scordino, where the Grand Chamber held that "[t]he issue as to whether a person [might] still claim to be the victim of an alleged violation of the Convention essentially entail[ed] on the part of the Court an ex post facto examination of his or her situation" including, in particular, an examination of the "effectiveness of the remedy" afforded by the national authorities (see Scordino v. Italy (No. 1) [GC], No. 36813/97, §§ 180 - 182, ECHR 2006-V). The Court's ex post facto examination of the situation had to focus on the practical results of the remedy's actual application. Thus, for example, where the claimed remedy for the excessive length of judicial proceedings was a subsequent action for compensation, the Court had to determine not only the availability of such an action under the domestic law, but also the timeliness of the adjudication of that action because "excessive delays in an action for compensation [would] render the remedy inadequate" (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], No. 64886/01, § 86, ECHR 2006-V).
60. According to the applicant, the Government's position in the case - that the applicant's complaints about the rehearing could not be considered within the context of the pending case but only on a new application - was essentially a way of evading this Court's review of the initial and repeated violations of the applicant's rights. Were the applicant to lodge a new application concerning the rehearing, the Government would insist on a new round of steps to exhaust domestic remedies and a new "opportunity to examine the applicant's allegations and remedy the violat



> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 ... 19 20 21

	Поделиться:	Tweet