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

with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

II. Alleged violations of Article 6 of the Convention

61. The applicant considered that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention on account of various procedural defects in the criminal proceedings against him. The relevant provisions read as follows:
"1. In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing...
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
...
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(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;..."

A. The parties' submissions

1. The applicant

62. As regards the pre-trial and trial proceedings, the applicant complained that the allegedly forced removal and replacement of counsel O. in November 2000 and the admission by the trial court of certain evidence violated Article 6 of the Convention. The applicant had not been afforded an opportunity to suggest an issue for the pre-trial expert examination, and the expert had been biased. The trial judge had been biased, in particular in her summing up to the jury; the applicant had not had sufficient access to the case file; the trial court had failed to make every reasonable effort to summon Y. for questioning by the defence while the authorities had been well aware of her new address; the trial judge had been wrong to admit Y. and Ov.'s pre-trial incriminating statements, which had allegedly been obtained under duress, as evidence. The trial judge had refused to amend the trial transcript, which contained distorted information.
63. As regards the appeal proceedings, the applicant alleged that his ability to participate effectively and to ensure his own defence in them had been undermined due to a number of factors: the lack of access to the case file before the appeal hearing and of an opportunity to familiarise himself with and comment on the materials submitted by his own counsel and the prosecutor to the appeal court; a short notice of the date and time of the hearing and lack of any prior consultation with counsel; the conditions of his detention on 4 June 2002; the low quality of the audio link so that he could not follow the oral pleadings by the prosecutor and the judge rapporteur; and the swift character of the hearing. On the other hand, the prosecutor had been present in the courtroom and had forcefully presented his position to the appeal court. Lastly, the applicant mentioned that during the hearing he had been kept in a metal cage measuring 1.5 x 2 metres.

2. The Government

64. The Government considered that the criminal proceedings had been fair. In particular, regarding the appeal proceedings, they submitted that the applicant and counsel had been informed when the case had been sent to the Supreme Court. The applicant was aware that leave for his participation in the appeal hearing had been granted. His counsel had been informed of the date and time of that hearing. The Government acknowledged that a copy of the prosecutor's written pleadings in reply to the applicant's statement of appeal had not been made available to the defence. They argued, however, that the applicant had taken cognisance of them, since they had been read out at the hearing. Lastly, the Government indicated that the audio link had been "compliant with the applicable technical standards".




> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 12 13 14

	Поделиться:	Tweet