Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 09.07.2009 "Дело "Илатовский (Ilatovskiy) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Andre} Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 June 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 6945/04) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Mr Oleg Yuryevich Ilatovskiy ("the applicant"), on 22 December 2003.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr K. Redkin, a lawyer practising in St. Petersburg. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev and Mrs V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been convicted by a court which had not been "a tribunal established by law".
4. On 25 October 2006 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
5. The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having examined the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it.

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

6. The applicant was born in 1961 and lived until his arrest in St. Petersburg.
7. On 7 June 2000 the applicant was charged with aggravated robbery and possession of weapons. On 17 April 2002 he was committed to stand trial before the Primorskiy District Court of St. Petersburg, composed of Ms T., the presiding judge, Mr S. and Ms B., lay judges. The Government, relying on a copy of "Supplement to list No. 1" approved on 28 August 1991 by the Head of the Primorskiy District Council of People's Deputies and listing the names of eleven individuals, including Mr S., their home address and place of work, argued that Mr S. had been selected to serve in the Primorskiy District Court in 1991. The Government further submitted that Ms B. had been appointed as a lay judge to the Primorskiy District Court in 1999. They supported their assertion with a copy of decision No. 2156 of 7 December 1999 of the Primorskiy District Council, approving the list of lay judges for the Primorskiy District Court. According to that decision, Ms B. was elected by the Presidium of the Primorskiy District Assembly of War and Labour Veterans. Mr S. was not included in that list.
8. The applicant unsuccessfully asked the District Court to hear several individuals who could have provided "valuable information concerning the case". He and his lawyer also challenged the composition of the bench a number of times, arguing that the lay judges S. and B. had no right to sit on the bench and asking for documents to be produced confirming that they had been elected to serve in the Primorskiy District Court. The challenges were dismissed with the bald statement that the court's composition was lawful.
9. On 27 December 2002 the District Court found the applicant guilty of aggravated robbery, dismissed the charge of arms possession and sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment.
10. The applicant and his lawyer filed an appeal against the judgment of 27 December 2002. They challenged, inter alia, the composition of the bench that had given the said judgment. They claimed that the lay judges, Mr S. and Ms B., had not been appointed in accordance with the procedure established by law. They also referred to the list of lay judges of the Primorskiy District Court of St. Petersburg which had been



> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 19 20 21

	Поделиться:	Tweet