Rules. This did not allow for a thorough examination of the case..."
The prosecutor was present at the hearing and made submissions to the Presidium of the Regional Court. According to the applicant, neither he nor his counsel was apprised of this hearing and consequently could not attend it.
10. In the resumed proceedings, on 22 May 2002 the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to one year of correctional labour coupled with a fine amounting to 10% of his income. Under the Amnesty Act 2000 the applicant was absolved from serving his sentence.
11. On 9 July 2002 the Regional Court set aside the judgment of 22 May 2002 and discontinued the proceedings as time-barred.
C. Supervisory review and third round of proceedings
12. On a supervisory review request from the President of the Regional Court, on 20 September 2002 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the appeal judgment and remitted the case to the appeal court. The supervisory instance court stated that the defendant's consent should have been obtained for a discontinuation due to the expiry of the limitation period.
13. After a fresh appeal hearing on 15 October 2002, the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 22 May 2002.
14. On 21 March 2006 the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation lodged a supervisory review request with a view to quashing the judgment of 15 October 2002. On 26 April 2006 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgments of 20 September and 15 October 2002. The Supreme Court indicated that the Code of Criminal Procedure in force since 1 July 2002 did not allow supervisory review of a court decision to discontinue a criminal case. In addition, the Supreme Court stated that the Regional Court had mistakenly considered that the applicant's consent to the discontinuation of the case had been necessary. The judgment of 9 July 2002 was thereby reinstated in legal force.
15. It appears that the applicant appealed against the judgment of 21 March 2006. On 7 June 2007 a judge of the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal.
II. Relevant domestic law and practice
16. The relevant provisions of Russian law are outlined in the judgment of Nikitin v. Russia (No. 50178/99, §§ 22 - 29, ECHR 2004).
17. At the relevant time, acquittals and decisions to discontinue the proceedings could not be subject to supervisory review (Article 405 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 2001).
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
as regards the supervisory ruling of 21 September 2001
18. The applicant complained that this supervisory ruling which set aside the judgment of 7 August 2001, had violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He also alleged that neither he nor his representative had been apprised of the hearing on 21 September 2001 and therefore could not attend it. Article 6 § 1 reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
"In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing within a reasonable time... by [a]... tribunal..."
A. Admissibility
19. The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Quashing of the final judgment
20. The Government submitted that the judgment of 7 August 2001 was quashed within an acceptable period of time not breaching the principle of legal certainty.
21. The applicant maintained his complaint.
22. The Court reiterates the importance of one of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law, namely
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 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
