Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.06.2010 «Дело Рослов (Roslov) против России» [англ.]

e "reasonable time" requirement was not breached in the present case.

II. Other alleged violations

52. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 that he had not been summoned to certain hearings in which the court examined his remarks on the minutes of previous hearings and that the court had wrongly established the facts in his case; under Article 6 § 2 that presumption of innocence in his respect had been violated by certain statements of the Department of Education of Orel; under Article 6 § 3 (b) and (c) that in the first round of proceedings he had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to prepare his defence, nor had he had legal assistance because of dismissal of his request to grant time to his lawyer to study the case file; under Article 6 § 3 (d) that in the first round of proceedings the courts had refused to obtain the attendance of witness K; under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 that the obligation not to leave his place of residence imposed on him had been disproportionate.
53. The Court considers that the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of wrong assessment of evidence is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
54. As for the complaint under the same provision of lack of notification of certain hearings in which the court examined the applicant's remarks on hearing minutes, the applicant did not raise this grievance in his grounds of appeal. It follows that this complaint must be rejected on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
55. The applicant did not raise the complaint under Article 6 § 2 of lack of presumption of innocence in his grounds of appeal, nor did he bring a civil action against the alleged offenders. It follows that this complaint also must be rejected on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
56. As regards the complaint under Article 6 § 3 (b) and (c) of lack of time to prepare defence and lack of legal assistance, the applicant is no longer a victim under the Convention, as the relevant judgment had been quashed by the supervisory instance exactly for these reasons. The complaint must be rejected in accordance with Article 34 of the Convention.
57. As for the complaint under Article 6 § 3 (d), the applicant did not raise the issue in his grounds of appeal, nor did he explain in his application why questioning of this witness had been necessary for fair consideration of the case. It follows that this complaint must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention.
58. Regarding the complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of restriction on freedom of movement, the applicant did not appeal the court's decision to impose this measure of restraint. In any case, this restriction was imposed in the interest of justice and does not appear disproportionate to the aims pursued. It follows that this complaint must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Declares the complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 June 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Christos ROZAKIS
President

{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar






> 1 2 ... 3 4 5

	Поделиться:	Tweet