took part in a hearing before a supervisory review court. A convict and his or her counsel could be summoned if the court found it necessary. If summoned, they were to be afforded an opportunity to take cognisance of the application for supervisory review and to make oral submissions at the hearing. By its ruling of 14 February 2000, the Constitutional Court declared Article 377 § 3 of the Code unconstitutional in so far as it allowed a supervisory instance court to examine the case without providing the convicted or acquitted person and their counsel with an opportunity to know the contents of the request for supervisory review lodged by the prosecutor, if the latter sought annulment of the final judgment on grounds unfavourable to that person. The Constitutional Court made the same findings in respect of the lack of a legal requirement to notify the convicted or acquitted person and their counsel of the time when and place where the supervisory review hearing would take place. Failing that, the above persons would be unable to state their position to the court.
40. A supervisory review court was not bound by the scope of the application for supervisory review and was under an obligation to review the criminal case in its entirety (Article 380). It could uphold, amend or quash any of the earlier judgments, vary the sentence, discontinue the criminal proceedings or remit the matter for new consideration by the trial or appeal court. It could not, however, increase the sentence or re-categorise the defendant's actions as a more serious offence (ibid.).
B. Prisoners' correspondence
41. Article 91 § 2 of the Penal Code, as amended on 8 December 2003, as well as Rule 53 of the Internal Regulations of Correctional Facilities adopted on 3 November 2005 by Decree No. 205 of the Russian Ministry of Justice, provide that all detainees' incoming and outgoing correspondence is subject to censorship by the administration of the correctional facility. Correspondence with courts, prosecutors, penitentiary officials, the Ombudsman, the public monitoring board and the European Court of Human Rights is not subject to censorship.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
42. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (b) - (d) of the Convention that the decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, taken in his absence, had violated his right to fair trial. The Court will examine the applicant's complaint under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c), the relevant parts of which read as follows:
"1. In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal....
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..."
A. Submissions by the parties
43. The Government submitted that the applicant had been duly notified of a scheduled hearing on 8 August 2001 and adjournment, as well as provided in due time with a copy of the application of 16 April 2001. Hence, he should have been aware of the fact and the aim of the re-examination of his conviction. By contrast to the case of Pelissier and Sassi, the examination of the case by the Presidium court should not be considered as levelling a new charge against the applicant because the relevant facts remained the same; they had only been given a different legal classification. Moreover, the reclassification had been favourable to the applicant because his sentence had been reduced
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 12 13 14
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
