Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 28.05.2009 "Дело "Карягин, Матвеев и Королев (Karyagin, Matveyev and Korolev) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

rous instances of minor changes, while regrettable, were not sufficient to render the applicants' right of appeal nugatory. According to the applicants, other discrepancies had intensified the accusations against them, making the perception of the judgment by the appeal court more unfavourable, and had rendered references to pages and lines in their appeals meaningless. However, a detailed examination of the discrepancies alleged to be significant indicates that most of the limited number of differences in question concern the order in which the defendants' names were listed, the use of different verbal forms (imperfective or perfective aspects, passive or active voice) or the use of plural rather than singular nouns (and vice versa). Certain words have been substituted (taken/undertaken, audio-cassettes/audio-recordings). The other examples are discussed below. The Court further notes that the applicants did not give specific examples of the connection between the discrepancies in the judgments and the points of their appeals. No tangible argument can be elicited from their submissions as to how these discrepancies had affected the appeal court's examination of the case to their detriment.
29. Thus, for example, the applicants pointed out that copy 2 of the judgment recounted that, according to record No. 1413 concerning a search in a garage, five million roubles received as a bribe had been found and seized. In copy 1 of the judgment the same sentence refers to six million roubles. However, the applicants gave no indication to the Court as to the precise connection between this piece of evidence and their conviction, nor as to the impact of this discrepancy on their appeals. It is unclear why a lesser amount of money being involved, as indicated in the copy of the judgment examined by the appeal court, could have led to an assessment less favourable for the applicants. In another example the applicants complained of a difference in the spelling of the initials of one of the victims. However, it is unclear what problem this might have created for the applicant since in both copies that person is clearly identified with a reference to his post as a manager of a specific company. In another instance the applicants complained that copy 2 omitted one sentence mentioning audiotapes as evidence and individuals whose speech had been recorded. However, the text below in that copy contains a detailed description of what was recorded on those audiotapes, including the names of the relevant persons. Similarly, a missing paragraph of an article of the Criminal Code, under which, along with other provisions, the applicant Mr Karyagin had been convicted, appears further down in the operative provisions of copy 2 of the judgment.
30. In view of the above considerations the Court finds that in the particular circumstances of the present case the procedural irregularity concerning the discrepancies between the two copies of the judgment did not render the applicants' proceedings unfair.
31. Therefore, there has been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 May 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Christos ROZAKIS
President

{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar






> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10

	Поделиться:	Tweet