Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 26.02.2009 "Дело "Федоров (Fedorov) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

rnment, the applicant was informed of the application for supervisory review and of the hearing which was scheduled for 27 November 2003.
14. On 27 November 2003 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court granted the prosecutor's application and amended the judgment of 27 December 2000 accordingly. The court ordered that the applicant be relieved from serving the sentence due to the Amnesty Act of 26 May 2000 remained in force.

II. Relevant domestic law

A. Criminal Code

Article 158
...
2. Theft committed
(a) by a group of persons acting in conspiracy;
(b) with unlawful entry of premises or other storage;
(c) with causing substantial damage to an individual;
...
is punishable by a fine..., or community works..., or correctional works..., or imprisonment of up to five years.

B. Code of Criminal Procedure

15. Section VI, Chapter 30, of the 1960 Code of Criminal Procedure (Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс РСФСР), as in force at the material time, allowed certain officials to challenge a judgment which had become effective and to have the case reviewed on points of law and procedure. The supervisory review procedure (Articles 371 - 83 of the Code) is distinct from proceedings in which a case is reviewed in the light of newly established facts (Articles 384 - 90). However, similar rules apply to both procedures (Article 388).

1. Date on which a judgment becomes effective

16. Under the terms of Article 356 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a judgment takes effect and is enforceable from the date on which the appeal court renders its decision or, if no appeal has been lodged, once the time-limit for appeal has expired.

2. Grounds for supervisory review

17. Relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure read as follows:
Article 379
Grounds for setting aside judgments which have become effective
"The grounds for quashing or varying a judgment [on supervisory review] are the same as [those for setting aside judgments (which have not taken effect) on appeal]..."
Article 342
Grounds for quashing or varying judgments [on appeal]
"The grounds for quashing or varying a judgment on appeal are as follows:
(i) prejudicial or incomplete investigation or pre-trial or court examination;
(ii) inconsistency between the facts of the case and the conclusions reached by the court;
(iii) a grave violation of procedural law;
(iv) misapplication of [substantive] law;
(v) discrepancy between the sentence and the seriousness of the offence or the convicted person's personality."

3. Authorised officials

18. Article 371 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided that the power to lodge a request for a supervisory review could be exercised by the Prosecutor-General, the President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation or their respective deputies in relation to any judgment other than those of the Presidium of the Supreme Court, and by the presidents of the regional courts in respect of any judgment of a regional or subordinate court. A party to criminal or civil proceedings could solicit the intervention of those officials for a review.

4. Limitation period

19. Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedure set a limitation period of one year during which a request calling for the supervisory review of an acquittal could be brought by an authorised official. The period ran from the date on which the acquittal took effect.

5. The effect of a supervisory review

20. Under Articles 374, 378 and 380 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a request for



> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11 ... 12 13

	Поделиться:	Tweet