t
98. The Court observes that, according to the information submitted by the Government, the applicant was placed in a punishment cell on at least twenty-five occasions between October 2005 and September 2006. The periods of detention lasted from six days to two months (on one occasion in 2006).
99. The Court does not exclude that recourse to disciplinary penalties or criminal proceedings against an applicant can be aimed at intimidating or punishing him for his application to the Court (see Oferta Plus SRL v. Moldova, No. 14385/04, § 143, 19 December 2006). The threat of criminal or disciplinary proceedings against an applicant's lawyer concerning the contents of a statement submitted to the Court has previously been found to interfere with the applicant's right of petition (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 160 and 164, Reports 1998-III, and McShane v. the United Kingdom, No. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May 2002), as has the institution of criminal proceedings against a lawyer involved in the preparation of an application to the Commission (see {Sarli} v. Turkey, No. 24490/94, §§ 85 - 86, 22 May 2001). The Russian Government were found to be in breach of their obligation under Article 34 of the Convention in a case where the applicant's representative and translator had been summoned by the local police for an interview in connection with the applicant's claims for just satisfaction (see Fedotova v. Russia, No. 73225/01, §§ 49 - 52, 13 April 2006; see also Ryabov v. Russia, No. 3896/04, §§ 58 - 65, 31 January 2008).
100. The Court has to determine whether the imposition of relatively harsh consecutive penalties on the applicant in the present case was intended to impinge or actually had the effect of impinging upon his right of petition under Article 34 of the Convention. The Court observes in that connection that none of the substantive claims raised by the applicant before the Court concerned the detention facility in question. More importantly, the applicant did not contest the fact that he had disregarded certain prison rules which he considered unreasonable.
101. The Court notes from the parties' submissions that throughout his detention in various detention facilities the applicant was subjected to disciplinary penalties for breaches of the prison rules. Those penalties gave grounds to take additional disciplinary measures against him. Having examined the record presented by the Government, the Court considers that neither the penalties nor the consequent change in the applicant's detention regime revealed any arbitrariness which could in itself amount to a form of pressure contrary to Article 34 of the Convention (see Poleshchuk v. Russia, No. 60776/00, § 32, 7 October 2004, and Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, No. 36932/02, § 167, 25 June 2009). The applicant's allegation that there was a connection between his application to the Court and the imposition of the penalties at issue is unsubstantiated. The Court thus finds that it has not been convincingly established that the authorities of the respondent State interfered with the exercise of the applicant's right of individual petition.
102. Accordingly, the respondent State cannot be said to have failed to comply with its obligation under Article 34 of the Convention on this account.
IV. Other alleged violations of the Convention
103. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the trial court had erred in admitting as evidence A.'s incriminating statements made at the pre-trial stage, allegedly under duress. He also complained under Article 8 of the Convention of the limitation of his contacts with his family during an unspecified period or periods of his detention in the remand centre.
104. The Court has examined the remainder of the applicant's complaints as submitted by him. However, having regard to a
> 1 2 3 ... 34 35 36 37 ... 38
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
