nvention
29. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had not been tried and convicted by "a tribunal established by law" because the lay judges had not been selected in compliance with the procedure established by the domestic law. The relevant parts of Article 6 § 1 read as follows:
"In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal established by law."
A. Submissions by the parties
1. The Government
30. The Government submitted that the lay judges S. and B. had been competent to sit in the applicant's case as they had been lawfully elected in 1991 and 1999, respectively, and their statutory term of office had been extended by the President's Decrees of 22 March 1995, 23 January 1997 and 25 January 2000. In particular, Mr S. was included in the list of the Primorskiy District Court's lay judges which was approved by the Head of the Primorskiy District Council of People's Deputies on 28 August 1991. His term of office was regulated by the RSFSR Constitution of 1978 and amounted to five years. Ms B. was included in the list of the Primorskiy District Court's lay judges on 7 December 1999 by a decision of the Primorskiy District Council.
31. The Government further argued that the President's Decree of 5 August 2002, which had stripped the previous decrees of 22 March 1995, 23 January 1997 and 25 January 2000 of their binding force, had not rendered unlawful the participation of the lay judges S. and B. in the applicant's trial, as it had commenced on 17 April 2002. By virtue of the principle of continuity prescribed by the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure the lay judges' term of office was to expire only after the end of the applicant's trial and not on 5 August 2002, when the President had issued the Decree.
32. In addition, the Government noted that the list of lay judges serving in the Primorskiy District of St. Petersburg had been adopted on 6 November 2002 in compliance with the procedure set out in the new Lay Judges Act. The lay judges S. and B. were not included in that list. However, in the Government's opinion, the lay judges already serving on 6 November 2002 were exempted from the requirements of the Lay Judges Act.
2. The applicant
33. The applicant submitted that neither he nor his lawyer had been able to find any evidence in the St. Petersburg archives confirming that Mr S. and Ms B. had ever been elected to serve in the Primorskiy District Court as lay judges. Even assuming that lay judges acquired their status under the RSFSR laws, the applicant challenged the validity of their powers allegedly acquired under the RSFSR Judicial System Act of 8 July 1981. That Act provided that lay judges were to be elected at citizens' meetings. The minutes and results of the elections were to be certified and published by local executive committees and then forwarded to the district or town court. The applicant's lawyer asked the Primorskiy District and St. Petersburg City courts and the St. Petersburg City archive for certified copies of minutes of the meetings for election of lay judges, lists of lay judges and copies of official publications of such lists. His requests were fruitless. The domestic courts merely responded that the lay judges had been lawfully elected. The applicant inferred therefrom that until 6 November 2002 in the Primorskiy District of St. Petersburg there had been no lay judges who had been duly nominated to their office in accordance with the RSFSR Judicial System Act.
34. In the alternative, the applicant submitted that since 10 January 2000 the status of lay judges, including Mr S. and Ms B., should have been governed by the Lay Judges Act because it had entered into force o
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 ... 19 20 21
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
