uthorities' lack of diligence during the pre-trial investigation would be shifted entirely onto the applicant and, more importantly, the mere allegation of a shortcoming or failure in the investigation, however minor and insignificant it might be, would create an unrestrained possibility for the prosecution to abuse process by requesting the reopening of finalised proceedings (ibid.). The Court considers that the mistakes or errors of the national authorities should serve to the benefit of the defendant. In other words, the risk of any mistake made by the prosecuting authority or a court must be borne by the state and the errors must not be remedied at the expense of the individual concerned.
27. Finally, the Court notes that the grounds for supervisory review were identical to the grounds for an appeal under the domestic law. Such arrangement was in itself slightly conducive to the protection of legal certainty and, in the present case, led to a situation where the supervisory review court had dealt with the request for quashing as if in ordinary appeal proceedings and had reopened the finalised proceedings on vaguely formulated grounds and without considering the implication of its decision for legal certainty.
28. In view of the above considerations, the Court finds that the quashing of the judgment of 7 August 2001 by way of supervisory review amounted to a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
2. Procedural guarantees in supervisory review proceedings
29. The Government submitted copies of the letters of 17 September 2001 which the Regional Court sent by mail to the applicant and his representative informing them of the date and time of the hearing on 21 September 2001. A copy of the prosecutor's supervisory request had been enclosed therewith.
30. The applicant maintained that he had not received any such notification. He contended that under national law a notification should have been by registered mail and that the Presidium court did not verify whether the applicant had been duly notified of the hearing on 21 September 2001.
31. In view of the finding made in paragraph 28 above, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether the procedural guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention were complied with.
II. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
as regards the supervisory ruling of 20 September 2002
32. The applicant complained that the supervisory ruling of 20 September 2002, which set aside the judgment of 9 July 2002, had violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (cited above).
33. The Government submitted that on 26 April 2006 the Supreme Court had quashed the supervisory ruling in question. By doing so, the Supreme Court acknowledged the violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the applicant. The Government concluded that the applicant had lost his victim status.
34. The applicant submitted that the decision of 26 April 2006 had not been satisfactory, in particular because it had not afforded him compensation for unlawful prosecution.
35. The Court considers that this part of the application is linked to the complaint examined above and that, therefore, it should also be declared admissible. However, having regard to the conclusions in paragraph 28 above, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether the 2002 supervisory review proceedings complied with Article 6 of the Convention.
III. Alleged violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7
36. The applicant also contended under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 that the supervisory review proceedings had constituted a violation of his right not to be tried again in criminal proceedings for an offence of which he had been finally acquitted.
37. The Court considers that this part of the a
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 12
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
