s. If they are notified of the situation, the authorities must either replace the lawyer or oblige him or her to fulfil those duties (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A No. 37).
Nevertheless, a State cannot be held responsible for every shortcoming of a lawyer appointed for legal-aid purposes. It follows from the independence of the legal profession that the conduct of the defence is essentially a matter between the defendant and his counsel, whether counsel be appointed under a legal-aid scheme or be privately financed. The Court considers that the competent national authorities are required under Article 6 § 3 (c) to intervene only if a failure by legal-aid counsel to provide effective representation is manifest or sufficiently brought to their attention in some other way (Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 67, Series A No. 168,).
53. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the State-appointed legal counsel, Ms D., took certain steps to prepare the applicant's defence pending the appeal hearing. She studied his case file and then attended the appeal hearing, where she made oral submissions to the court on the applicant's behalf on the basis of the grounds of appeal lodged by the applicant.
54. The Court further notes that, even though she had ample opportunity to do so, Ms D. never met or otherwise communicated with the applicant. Similarly, even though the applicant made the appeal court aware of that situation, it took no measures to remedy that shortcoming. The Court does not accept the Government's argument that the applicant failed to ask the appeal court to replace Ms D. The said shortcoming was manifest and the onus was on the domestic authorities to intervene.
55. In the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the lack of personal contact with the applicant and the absence of any discussion with him in advance of the hearing, combined with the fact that the State-appointed lawyer did not prepare any grounds of appeal of her own and pleaded the case on the basis of grounds of appeal lodged some four years earlier by the applicant, irreparably impaired the effectiveness of the legal assistance provided by Ms D.
56. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the Smolensk Regional Court failed to ensure the applicant's effective legal representation in the appeal hearing on 13 February 2007.
(c) Conclusions
57. In view of the above findings, the Court concludes that the criminal proceedings against the applicant were unfair. The applicant's right to be present and to defend himself at the trial has been infringed. This defect was not cured on appeal owing to the authorities' failure to ensure the applicant's effective legal representation before the appeal court.
58. Accordingly, the applicant may therefore still claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. The Court therefore rejects the Government's objection under this head and finds that there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention.
II. Other alleged violations of Article 6 of the Convention
59. The applicant further complained under Article 6 §§ 2 and 3 of the Convention that the trial court had used inadmissible evidence and that the judge had been biased against him because he had previously convicted him on two other counts.
60. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the events complained of do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Articles 35 § 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. Application
> 1 2 3 ... 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
