the parties - that Mr S. and Ms B. should have been appointed to the tribunal in accordance with the RSFSR Judicial System and Courts Election Acts (see paragraphs 13 and 14 above). Accordingly, it was open to the Government to submit copies of documents which could constitute the legal basis for the lay judges' appointment, such as the minutes of citizens' meetings for the election of lay judges, the official publications of the list in the local press or the complete text of the decision of the executive committee of the District Council of People's Deputies by which the list of lay judges had been approved. However, no such documents were presented. An archive search carried out by the applicant with a view to finding such documents was unavailing. The applicant's and his lawyer's requests to the District Court for provision of such documents also did not produce any result (see paragraphs 8 and 10 above). The Court is, therefore, not convinced by the Government's submission that Mr S. was elected to serve in the Primorskiy District Court.
40. As to the participation of the lay judge B. in the applicant's trial, the Court observes that the Government produced a copy of decision No. 2156 of 7 December 1999 of the Primorskiy District Council in support of their assertion that Ms B. had been selected to serve in the Primorskiy District Court (see paragraph 7 above). It appears from that decision that the Presidium of the Primorskiy District Assembly of War and Labour Veterans elected Ms B. to serve as a lay judge. In that connection, the Court notes the apparent failure to observe the requirements of the RSFSR Judicial System and Courts Election Acts (see paragraphs 13 and 14 above) regarding the election of lay judges by general staff meetings or general meetings and gatherings of citizens at their place of residence. The Court observes that the Government did not argue that under the domestic law in force at the material time the Presidium could have replaced a general staff meeting at Ms B.'s place of work or a general meeting at Ms B.'s place of residence. It follows that there has been a substantive breach of the rules for selection of lay judges established in Article 58 of the Courts Election Act (see paragraph 14 above) and Section 22 of the RSFSR Judicial System Act (see paragraph 13 above).
41. Accordingly, there existed no legal grounds for the participation of the lay judges S. and B. in the administration of justice. The above considerations do not permit the Court to conclude that the Primorskiy District Court that issued the judgment of 27 December 2002 could be regarded as a "tribunal established by law". The St. Petersburg City Court, in its review of the matter on appeal, did nothing to eliminate the abovementioned defects (see Fedotova v. Russia, cited above, § 43).
42. There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
(b) Extension of the lay judges' term of office: the President's Decrees and the Lay Judges Act
43. The parties, in addition, disputed whether the President had the authority to extend lay judges' term of office in view of the adoption of the Lay Judges Act in 2000, two years before the applicant's trial commenced. In this connection the Court reiterates its finding that the fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant was undermined by the serious defects in the initial selection of the lay judges which had heard the applicant's case. It therefore considers it unnecessary to examine separately whether the fairness of the proceedings was also breached because the lay judges' term of office had been extended by the President's Decrees while the Lay Judges Act, setting the new procedure for the selection of lay judges, had already come into force (see {Komanicky} v. Slovakia, No. 32106/96, § 56, 4 June 2002 and Vladimir Romanov v.
> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 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
