Главная страницаZaki.ru законы и право Поиск законов поиск по сайту Каталог документов каталог документов Добавить в избранное добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное




Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.04.2010 «Дело Севастьянов (Sevastyanov) против России» [англ.]





A), and their importance for the appellant (see Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 59, Series A No. 268-B; Kamasinski, § 106 in fine; and Ekbatani, §§ 27 and 28, both cited above).
70. The Court also reiterates that Article 6, read as a whole, guarantees the right of an accused to participate effectively in a criminal trial, including, inter alia, not only his right to be present, but also to hear and follow the proceedings (see Stanford v. the United Kingdom, 23 February 1994, § 26, Series A No. 282-A). The principle of equality of arms - one of the elements of the broader concept of a fair trial - requires each party to be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage {vis-a-vis} his opponent (see, among other authorities, {Niderost-Huber} v. Switzerland, judgment of 18 February 1997, § 23, Reports 1997-I). The concept of a fair trial also means in principle the opportunity for the parties to a trial to have knowledge of and comment on all evidence adduced or observations filed with a view to influencing the court's decision (see Kress v. France [GC], No. 39594/98, § 74, ECHR 2001-VI, with further references). The above did not, however, confer a right to have disclosed to an applicant, before the hearing, submissions which have not been disclosed to the other party to the proceedings or to the reporting judge or to the judges of the trial bench (see {Niderost-Huber}, cited above, ibid.).
71. Where an appellate court has to examine a case as to the facts and the law and make a full assessment of the issue of guilt or innocence, it cannot determine the issue without a direct assessment of the evidence given in person by the accused for the purpose of proving that he did not commit the act allegedly constituting a criminal offence (see Dondarini v. San Marino, No. 50545/99, § 27, 6 July 2004).
72. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes at the outset that the Supreme Court granted the applicant's request to be brought to the appeal hearing. For this purpose the applicant was escorted from the Ivanovo Region to Moscow. However, instead of being brought to the hearing the applicant participated in it by video link from a Moscow remand centre (see also paragraph 56 above). The applicant, apparently, first learnt that he would participate in the appeal hearing by video link on the day of the hearing and thus could not be expected to have objected to it in the absence of legal advice. The respondent Government did not suggest, and the Court does not consider, that there was any compelling reason to justify the applicant being brought to Moscow but not to the courtroom of the Supreme Court.
73. The Court further reiterates that where an applicant communicates with the court by way of a video link, the exercise of the right to legal assistance takes on particular significance especially where, as in the present case, there are numerous and serious charges against the applicant and the sentence to which he is liable is severe (see Shulepov v. Russia, No. 15435/03, § 35, 26 June 2008, and Golubev v. Russia (dec.), No. 26260/02, 9 November 2006). The applicant was not represented at the appeal hearing. Furthermore, it is noted that the prosecutor was present in the courtroom and had an opportunity to make oral submissions (see paragraph 48 above). Given the scope of the appeal, it is possible that the prosecution commented on the defence's arguments concerning various defects in the pre-trial investigation, the trial judge's summing-up to the jury and the quality of evidence, including the expert opinions. In such situation, though it is doubtful that the absence of counsel was imputable to the authorities, they should have ensured, for instance by adjourning the hearing and/or appointing another counsel, that the defence rights were secured in the appeal proceedings to



> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 12 ... 13 14

Поделиться:

Опубликовать в своем блоге livejournal.com
0.3074 с