e thus empowered to fully review the case and to consider additional arguments which had not been examined in the first-instance proceedings, (b) the seriousness of the charges against the applicant and (c) the severity of the sentence which he had faced - the Court considered that the interests of justice demanded that, in order to receive a fair hearing, the applicant should have had legal representation at the appeal hearing. The Court therefore found a violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention (see Shilbergs v. Russia, No. 20075/03, § 123, 17 December 2009; Potapov v. Russia, No. 14934/03, § 24, 16 July 2009; and Shulepov v. Russia, No. 15435/03, §§ 34 - 39, 26 June 2008). Those elements were present in the instant case and the Government did not furnish any arguments that would have allowed the Court to reach a different conclusion.
70. Moreover, the Court reiterates that the exercise of the right to legal assistance takes on particular significance where the applicant communicates with the courtroom by videolink (see Golubev v. Russia (dec.), No. 26260/02, 9 November 2006, and Shulepov, cited above, § 35). In the present case, the appeal hearing was conducted by videolink which was yet another factor that should have prompted the appeal court to verify the reasons for the absence of defence counsel for the first applicant (compare Grigoryevskikh v. Russia, No. 22/03, § 92, 9 April 2009).
71. In view of the Supreme Court's failure to do so in the present case, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention.
V. Alleged violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)
of the Convention in the proceedings concerning
both applicants
72. The applicants further complained under Article 6 § 3 (d) that the trial court, in the proceedings concerning the charge of robbery, had not secured the attendance and examination of the witnesses Ms E., Mr B. and Mr U., garage employees, the investigators Ms K. and Ms P., or the forensic expert Mr Ku. As 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, the Court will examine the applicants' complaints under those two provisions taken together (see, among many other authorities, Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, 23 April 1997, § 49, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III). Article 6 § 3 (d) reads as follows:
"3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
...
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him."
73. The Government submitted that the domestic authorities had repeatedly attempted to obtain the attendance of witnesses Ms E. and B. However, Ms E. had been away on a business trip and Mr B. had not been able to travel for financial reasons. The reading-out of their statements had been authorised in compliance with the domestic law and had not impaired the applicants' rights. They further indicated that the investigator Ms P. had been examined in open court. Finally, the examination of the investigator Ms K. and the forensic expert Mr Ku. had not been necessary: Ms K. had taken part only in the initial verification of materials prior to the institution of the criminal proceedings, and Mr Ku. had recorded the origin of the victim's injuries on the basis of the victim's own statements.
74. The applicants submitted that they had repeatedly requested that the witnesses be examined in open court. An examination of Ms E. and Mr B. would have provided important evidence with a view to establishing whether they had coerced the victim into transferring the ownership of his car by force, or by threatening him with
> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11 ... 12
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
