ctively). However, nothing suggests that he was afforded such an opportunity. Firstly, the Government failed to substantiate their submission that the applicant had been apprised of the hearing on 8 August 2001 and of its adjournment until 3 October 2001. Furthermore, the authorities disregarded the applicant's requests for leave to appear before the Presidium court and thus he was absent from the hearing. Lastly, although the applicant submitted his written comments on the prosecution application, it does not transpire from the text of the judgment of 3 October 2001 that they were considered by the Presidium court.
48. In view of the above considerations the Court finds that the proceedings before the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation did not comply with the requirements of fairness. There has therefore been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
49. In light of this finding it is not necessary to examine separately whether the provisions of Article 6 § 3 have been complied with (see Stanislav Zhukov and Aldoshkina, both cited above, §§ 25 and 25 respectively).
II. Alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention
50. The applicant complained that the authorities had opened and inspected the Court's letter of 10 May 2005 and had seized documents enclosed there. The Court considers will examine the applicant's complaint under Article 8 of the Convention which reads as follows:
Article 8
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
A. Submissions by the parties
51. The Government acknowledged that the censorship of the Court's letter to the applicant constituted a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. They stressed, however, that the measures taken by the authorities had remedied the situation. In particular, the responsible persons had been identified and the need for them to be made aware and to avoid similar incidents in future had been acknowledged. The acknowledgment of that "insignificant" breach of the applicant's rights had constituted, in their view, an adequate redress and thus, he was no longer a victim of the alleged violation. On the merits, they argued, with reference to a certificate issued by colony LIU-2, that throughout his detention before and after conviction the applicant had sent 296 letters and complaints to various public authorities and had received 204 replies, including his correspondence with the Court. In the Government's view, that fact refuted his allegation that LIU-2 had interfered with his correspondence with the Court. Relying on the results of the domestic inquiries, they submitted that Z. had automatically unsealed the Court's letter. Having seen that the letter and the enclosed documents were in the English language, she had immediately passed the envelope and all enclosed documents on to Kh., head of the applicant's brigade. She had never withheld any documents. The Government stressed that Z. had had no command of English and could not have grasped the contents of the documents. Had she seen the European Court's logo, she would not have unsealed it. Kh. and V. also submitted that they had immediately passed the envelope on and had never removed any documents from it.
52. The applicant retorted that the certificate issued by the colony contained inaccurate information. Thus, whilst it mentioned in total eight lett
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 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
