er the letter nor the spirit of Article 6 of the Convention prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to the guarantees of a fair trial (see Kwiatkowska v. Italy (dec.), No. 52868/99, 30 November 2000). However, such a waiver must, if it is to be effective for Convention purposes, be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate with its importance (see Poitrimol, cited above, pp. 13 - 14, § 31)...
76. In view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see, among many other authorities, Delcourt v. Belgium, judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A No. 11, pp. 14 - 15, § 25 in fine), Article 6 of the Convention imposes on every national court an obligation to check whether the defendant has had the opportunity to apprise himself of the date of the hearing and the steps to be taken in order to take part where... this is disputed on a ground that does not immediately appear to be manifestly devoid of merit (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, No. 67972/01, § 72, ECHR 2004-IV)..."
2. Application of the above principles to the instant case
59. The Court observes at the outset that on 20 October 2003 the Presidium of the Kurgan Regional Court re-opened the applicant's case, reviewed it and reclassified the charges against him. The Court notes, accordingly, that the supervisory-review proceedings in the instant case concerned the determination of a criminal charge against the applicant and finds the above principles applicable (see, among recent authorities, Alekseyenko v. Russia, No. 74266/01, § 55 - 57, 8 January 2009).
60. In his application for supervisory review, the applicant contested his conviction on factual and legal grounds. He claimed, inter alia, that he should have been exonerated from the kidnapping charges. Accordingly, the Presidium of the Kurgan Regional Court had to make an assessment of the question of the applicant's guilt or innocence. The Court considers that that question could not, as a matter of a fair trial, have been properly determined without a direct assessment of the evidence given in person by the applicant, who claimed that he had liberated the kidnapped victim and was entitled to a non-guilty verdict on that account.
61. As regards the Government's contention that the applicant waived his right to appear before the court, the Court cannot accept it. The applicant's failure to ask the supervisory-review court to ensure his presence at the time when he lodged his application could not have been regarded by the domestic authorities as an unequivocal waiver of his right. Pursuant to the Russian Code of the Criminal Procedure, it was first incumbent on the supervisory-review court to inform the applicant that his request for supervisory review had been granted and communicate to him the time, date and place of the scheduled hearing (see paragraph 25 above). The Court notes that the Presidium of the Kurgan Regional Court did send such notice to the applicant. However, the applicant received it only after the supervisory-review hearing had already taken place.
62. In this connection, the Court reiterates that the Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective (see, among other authorities, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 24, Series A No. 32). It considers that the right to a hearing would be devoid of substance if a party to the case were not apprised of it in such a way as to have an opportunity to attend it, should he or she decide to exercise the right to appear established in the domestic law.
63. Lastly, it does not follow from the judgment of 20 October 2003 that the Presidium of the Kurgan Regional Court even checked whether the applicant had had an opportunity to apprise h
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 10
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
