gether (see Vacher v. France, 17 December 1996, § 22, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI).
36. While it is of capital importance that a defendant in criminal proceedings should be present during his or her trial, proceedings held in the absence of the accused are not incompatible with the Convention if the person concerned can subsequently obtain from a court which has heard him a fresh determination of the merits of the charge, in respect of both law and fact (see, among other authorities, Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], No. 56581/00, § 82 in fine, ECHR 2006-II).
37. The proceedings as a whole could be said to have been fair if the defendant was allowed to appeal against the conviction in absentia and entitled to attend the hearing in the court of appeal entailing the possibility of a fresh factual and legal determination of the criminal charge (see Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).
38. Neither 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. However, if it is to be effective for Convention purposes, a waiver of the right to take part in the trial must be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to its importance. Furthermore, it must not run counter to any important public interest (see, among other authorities, Sejdovic cite above, § 86 in fine, ECHR 2006-II).
39. The Court has also held that before an accused can be said to have implicitly, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6 of the Convention, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (see Jones, cited above).
40. The Convention leaves Contracting States wide discretion as regards the choice of the means calculated to ensure that their legal systems are in compliance with the requirements of Article 6. The Court's task is to determine whether the result called for by the Convention has been achieved. In particular, the procedural means offered by domestic law and practice must be shown to be effective where a person charged with a criminal offence has neither waived his right to appear and to defend himself nor sought to escape trial (see Sejdovic, cited above, § 83).
41. Although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A No. 277-A). A person charged with a criminal offence does not lose the benefit of this right merely on account of not being present at the trial (see Mariani v. France, No. 43640/98, § 40, 31 March 2005). It is of crucial importance for the fairness of the criminal justice system that the accused be adequately defended, both at first instance and on appeal (see Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A No. 297-A, and Pelladoah v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 40, Series A No. 297-B).
2. Application of the above principles to the instant case
42. In deciding whether the criminal proceedings against the applicant were fair, the Court will examine them as a whole (see Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A No. 247-B).
(a) Exclusion from the trial
43. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that during the trial the applicant was excluded from the courtroom for making threats against persons present in court. The judge directed that the applicant should be brought back to the courtroom at the end of the trial to make his final submissions. As a result, all the evidence, including, but not limited to, the testimony of the witnesses, was examined in his
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 8 9
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
