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

he judgment had not been signed by the judge and had been "falsified", but, nevertheless, the applicants' complaint lacked foundation. The Court finds such a reaction striking in that it only gave rise to further questions and frustration.
24. The Court considers that the applicants showed convincingly that the twenty-seven-page copy of the judgment ("copy 1") had been officially served on them by the Chelyabinsk Regional Court which had delivered the judgment. It was the only copy of the judgment available to them for the preparation of their appeals. The Government did not dispute that. The Court notes further that it was not disputed by the parties that the Supreme Court as an appeal instance had based its examination on the thirty-one-page copy of the judgment ("copy 2"), which it had received from the Chelyabinsk Regional Court. Furthermore, it transpires from the parties' submissions that copy 2 had been typed later than copy 1 and had rectified mistakes present in copy 1.
25. The Court reiterates that Contracting States enjoy considerable freedom in their choice of appropriate means of ensuring that their judicial systems comply with the requirements of Article 6. The national courts must, however, indicate with sufficient clarity the grounds on which they base their decision. It is this, inter alia, which makes it possible for the accused to exercise usefully the right of appeal available to him (see Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, 16 December 1992, § 33, Series A No. 252).
26. It is clearly preferable for the fairness of the trial that a defendant and an appeal court have identical copies of a judgment. The Court notes with concern that this was not the case in the applicants' proceedings. However, the Court cannot conclude that this impropriety as such amounts to a violation of Article 6 of the Convention (see Zipper v. Austria, No. 27778/95, Commission decision of 21 May 1997). What it must examine is whether the discrepancies between the two texts were such as to have adversely affected the applicants' right to defend themselves before the appeal court to an extent incompatible with the guarantees of Article 6.
27. The Court has examined in detail the two versions of the judgment and the comparison submitted by the applicants in support of their arguments. It has found that there was indeed a substantial number of discrepancies between the two documents. In its opinion, however, these discrepancies are not material, and it has been unable to identify any change that would substantiate the applicants' complaints. The overwhelming majority of differences in the texts concern rectifications of spelling or grammar, or the addition of information that is not in itself significant. The Court notes that the applicants complain, inter alia, of the following changes, many of which occurred more than once: hand-written words in copy 1 have been typewritten in copy 2; correction of the initial letter of a sentence to upper-case; the use of the word "as" in place of the original hyphen; figures have been given as numerals rather than written in full (and vice versa); the inclusion of a given individual's initials with the surname in copy 2; the omission of a given individual's initials in copy 2; corrections of grammatical cases to comply with the rules of written Russian; the order in which individuals' surnames are listed; "st." used in copy 2 instead of "street" (as in copy 1); altered word order in certain sentences; splitting up of a single long sentence into two sentences; the joining of two separate sentences as a single sentence; abbreviations written out in full; dates given in figures rather than in full; time references expressed in different forms; the correction of typing errors in individuals' names; a home address has been written in different ways; the regrouping of paragraphs; etc.
28. The Court considers that these nume



> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10

	Поделиться:	Tweet