by the defendant as he had not been served with them. The applicant also sought leave to appear before the appeal court and asked to be provided with legal assistance.
41. On 10 March 2004 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the judgment of 24 November 2003, endorsing the District Court's reasoning. The applicant was neither present nor represented.
D. Publication in the press and defamation action
42. On 21 August 2001 a local newspaper, "Komsomolskaya Pravda v Kaliningrade", published an article entitled "Cranberry Drink" ("Кисель из Клюквы"). The article concerned the killing of a prominent mafia leader in the town of Neman. The reporter described how police officers had chased a stolen car in which the "driver-thief" and the mafia leader were travelling. The parts of the article which concerned the applicant read as follows:
"During questioning the driver-thief Artur Shilbergis [the applicant's last name was misspelled] confessed that his accomplice [the mafia leader] had most probably "been using drugs" and had not understood anything.
The background to that car theft is the following. On 11 May this year three unknown persons in masks broke into the flat of a businessman in Neman. [They] stole 1,800 [US] dollars. Investigators identified the thieves. Mr M. organised the assault, his young girlfriend S. was on guard and three locals committed the robbery. But only one of the five bandits was arrested - Mr Pr. He gave useful statements and a prosecutor let him go on a written undertaking. Right away Mr Pr. began to receive threats prompting him to change his testimony.
On that fateful day Mr M. and the second robber Artur Shilbergis came to Mr Pr.'s home. [They] began banging on the door. The man did not open.
But it appears that Mr Pr. forgot to close the door of his car. The engine roared, and when the man ran out into the street, there was no trace of his friends."
43. On 2 June 2003 the applicant brought a defamation action against the newspaper. He complained that the Neman town police department had provided the newspaper with information concerning his arrest, that he had been called "a robber", "a bandit" and "a rapist" in the article and that the reporter, in violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, had informed the public that the applicant had robbed a businessman in Neman. The applicant also sought leave to appear.
44. On 24 October 2003 the Leninskiy District Court of Kaliningrad dismissed the applicant's action. The applicant was neither present nor represented, although a representative of the defendant attended.
45. The applicant appealed and sought leave to appear.
46. On 14 January 2004 the Kaliningrad Regional Court quashed the judgment of 24 October 2003 and remitted the case for fresh examination. The applicant was not present.
47. The applicant again requested the District Court to ensure his presence at the hearing.
48. On 20 October 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, in the applicant's absence, dismissed his action, finding that the information published in the article had been correct and corroborated by the findings of the trial court which had convicted the applicant of aggravated car theft on 16 November 2001. The reporter had not accused the applicant of any crime; he had merely described the circumstances that had led to the institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant. Furthermore, the District Court stressed that the reporter had never called the applicant "a rapist", "a bandit" or "a robber".
49. The applicant appealed, complaining, in particular, that he had not been able to attend any of the hearings before the District Court. He also sought leave to appear before the appeal court.
50. On 2 March 2005 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the judgment of 20
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 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
