EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF SABAYEV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 11994/03)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 8.IV.2010)
--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sabayev v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} <*> Nielsen, Section Registrar,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
Having deliberated in private on 18 March 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 11994/03) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Mr Maksim Anatolyevich Sabayev ("the applicant"), on 13 February 2003.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev and Mrs V. Milinchuk, former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. In his first application form of 13 February 2003 the applicant complained about the outcome of the proceedings in his case and also alleged that he had been denied an opportunity to attend the supervisory review hearing in his case. By letter of 1 February 2005 the applicant also complained about the allegedly unlawful composition of the trial court in his criminal case.
4. On 26 September 2006 the President of the First Section decided to communicate the complaint concerning the applicant's alleged inability to take part in the supervisory review hearing in his case to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. The circumstances of the case
5. The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in the town of Kolomna in the Moscow Region.
6. By judgment of 16 September 1999 the Elektrostal District Court of the Moscow Region examined the criminal case against the applicant and three other co-accused. The court convicted the applicant of aggravated blackmail and kidnapping and sentenced him to sixteen years' imprisonment. That sentence was upheld on appeal by the Moscow Regional Court on 25 January 2000.
7. Thereafter the applicant sought to initiate supervisory review of his case.
8. The applicant's supervisory review request to the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court was partly successful. On 18 January 2001 the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court, sitting as a supervisory review body, re-examined his case and partly changed the judgment of 16 September 1999.
9. On 26 February 2002 the applicant requested one of the Deputy Presidents of the Supreme Court to initiate supervisory review proceedings in his case before the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower courts wrongly assessed the evidence in the case and failed to apply the domestic law correctly.
10. Apparently in response to that request, on 11 June 2002 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court decided to initiate supervisory review proceedings in respect of the decisions of the lower courts in the app
> 1 2 3 ... 4 5 6