the applicant's appeal against the District Court's decision of 8 October 2003 by which his application for release had been dismissed. The Regional Court reasoned that the decision was not amenable to appeal as it had been taken in the course of a trial hearing (see paragraph 30 above). On 24 November 2003 the Leninskiy District Court refused to examine the applicant's request for release on the ground that it did not contain any new information warranting his release (see paragraph 35 above).
123. The Court observes that, as it follows from the Government's submissions, on both occasions, on 18 and 24 November 2003, the Regional and District Courts, respectively, had taken the decisions in violation of the domestic legal norms. On both occasions the domestic courts should have examined the merits of the applicant's claims and should have ruled on the substance of his complaints (see paragraph 112 above).
124. In such circumstances, having regard to the domestic courts' express refusals to examine the issue of the applicant's continued detention and to take cognisance of any arguments concerning the lawfulness of his detention, and keeping in mind the Government's assertion, the Court considers that those decisions did not constitute an adequate judicial response for the purposes of Article 5 § 4 and that they infringed the applicant's right to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention would be decided.
125. It follows that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the failure to consider the substance of the applicant's appeal against the detention decision of 8 October 2003 and his request for release lodged on 24 November 2003.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention during
the criminal proceedings on the libel charge
126. The applicant complained that his rights had been violated in the proceedings on the libel charge as he had not been present or represented at the trial. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, 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:
...
(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
127. The Government described in detail the circumstances surrounding the applicant's refusal to attend the trial and his decision forbidding his three lawyers to represent him. They further pointed out that the District Court had undertaken every necessary step to ensure the best possible defence of the applicant's interests, attempting to secure Ms Karlova's attendance. Ms Karlova had been familiar with the case, representing the applicant from the early stages of the criminal proceedings. However, the District Court's attempts had been unsuccessful due to Ms Karlova's repeated refusal to act as the applicant's lawyer. Thus, the District Court had interpreted the applicant's behaviour as a defence tactic and proceeded with the trial in his absence. In conclusion, the Government, citing Article 247 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, noted that the District Court's decision to conduct trial in absentia had been lawful, as the case had not concerned a serious offence and the applicant had refused to participate.
128. The applicant submitted that his refusal of the services of three retained lawyers had been motivated by his fear for their lives. Without providing any further details, he insis
> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 ... 25 26 27
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
