enjoy equality of arms with the opposing side. Article 6 § 1 leaves to the State a free choice of the means to be used in guaranteeing litigants these rights (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, No. 68416/01, §§ 59 - 60, ECHR 2005-II).
106. The issue of the exercise of procedural rights by detainees in civil proceedings has been examined on several occasions by the Russian Constitutional Court, which has identified several ways in which their rights can be secured (see paragraph 55 above). It has consistently emphasised representation as an appropriate solution in cases where a party cannot appear in person before a civil court. Given the obvious difficulties involved in transporting convicted persons from one location to another, the Court can in principle accept that in cases where the claim is not based on the plaintiff's personal experiences, as in the above-mentioned Kovalev case, representation of the detainee by an advocate would not be in breach of the principle of equality of arms.
107. In the instant case, given the nature of his claims in relation to the conditions of his detention in the Neman town temporary detention unit (see paragraphs 26 and 28 above) and facility No. IZ-39/1 (see paragraphs 38 and 41) and to the defamation action (see paragraphs 48 and 50 above), the applicant sought leave to appear before the civil courts, which was refused him. The courts examined the applicant's civil claims, finding that his attendance was not required.
108. The Court reiterates, and the Government did not argue otherwise, that the applicant insisted that he wished to be present at the hearings, arguing, among other things, that he did not have the means to pay for a lawyer. The Court observes that the option of legal aid was not open to the applicant (see paragraph 53 above). In such a situation the only possibility for him was to appoint a relative, friend or acquaintance to represent him in the proceedings. However, as is clear from the domestic courts' judgments, after the courts had refused the applicant leave to appear they did not consider how to secure his effective participation in the proceedings. They did not inquire whether the applicant was able to designate a representative and in particular whether, having regard to the time which he had already spent in detention, he still had a person willing to represent him before the domestic courts and, if so, whether he had been able to contact that person and give him authority to act. Moreover, it appears that on a number of occasions in the three sets of proceedings the applicant did not learn that he had been refused leave to attend the hearing until after the hearing had taken place (see paragraphs 24 and 35 above) or until he received a copy of the judgment in which his claim was dismissed on the merits (see paragraphs 26, 28, 38, 41, 48 and 50 above). Hence, the applicant was obviously unable to decide on a further course of action for the defence of his rights until such time as the decision refusing him leave to appear was communicated to him (see Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, No. 13470/02, § 107, 23 October 2008). The appeal courts did nothing to remedy that situation.
109. The Court further reiterates that the domestic courts refused the applicant leave to appear, relying on the absence of any legal norm requiring his presence. In this connection, the Court is also mindful of another possibility which was open to the domestic courts as a way of securing the applicant's participation in the proceedings. They could have held a session in the applicant's correctional colony (see paragraph 56 above). The Court finds it inexplicable that in none of the three sets of proceedings did the domestic courts even consider that option.
110. The Court is therefore bound to conclude that the fact that the applicant's civil claims were heard without his being present or represented depr
> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21 ... 23 24 25
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
