f fairness. It follows that the measures taken by the authorities, failed to provide appropriate redress to the applicant in respect of the violation of his right to take part in the appeal hearing of 15 August 2002. He may therefore still claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. The Court therefore, rejects the Government's objection under this head and finds that there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention on account of holding the appeal hearings of 15 August 2002 and 29 June 2006 in the applicant's absence.
II. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
51. The applicant complained under Article 3 that he had been ill-treated while in pre-trial detention. The Court notes that the applicant did not lodge any complaints in that respect with the competent state authorities. It follows that this complaint must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
52. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
53. The Court points out that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court any claim for just satisfaction must be submitted in writing within the time-limit fixed for the submission of the applicant's observations on the merits, "failing which the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part".
54. In the instant case, on 4 November 2005 the applicant was invited to submit his claims for just satisfaction. He failed to submit any such claims within the required time-limit. Therefore, the Court makes no award under Article 41 of the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Joins to the merits the Government's objection concerning the victim status of the applicant and rejects it;
2. Declares the complaint concerning holding the appeal hearings of 15 August 2002 and 29 June 2006 in the applicant's absence admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention on account of holding the appeal hearings of 15 August 2002 and 29 June 2006 in the applicant's absence;
4. Decides to make no award under Article 41.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 April 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Christos ROZAKIS
President
{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar
In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the joint concurring opinion of Judges Rozakis, Spielmann and Malinverni is annexed to this judgment.
C.L.R.
S.N.
JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES ROZAKIS,
SPIELMANN AND MALINVERNI
1. As in the case of Sakhnovskiy v. Russia, (No. 21272/03, 5 February 2009), we voted in favour of finding a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention.
2. In the present case the majority follows the approach adopted in Sakhnovsksiy, finding that the second appeal hearing did not provide appropriate redress for the shortcomings of the first appeal hearing and holding that there was a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) on account of the fact that both appeal hearings were held in the applicant's absence.
3. In our vie
> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
