Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 05.02.2009 "Дело "Сахновский (Sakhnovskiy) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

соответствует субсидиарному характеру системы, учрежденной в соответствии с Конвенцией о защите прав человека и основных свобод, в том, что национальные власти поощряются к устранению процессуальных недостатков на национальном уровне.





EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF SAKHNOVSKIY v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 21272/03)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 5.II.2009)

--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Sakhnovskiy v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 January 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 21272/03) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Mr Sergey Veniaminovich Sakhnovskiy ("the applicant"), on 18 April 2003.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that the criminal proceedings against him were conducted in violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, claiming that in the appeal proceedings he did not benefit from free legal assistance and, moreover, could not defend himself effectively because he communicated with the court of appeal by video link.
4. On 26 March 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
5. The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having examined the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it.

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

6. The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Novosibirsk.
7. On 30 April 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having murdered his father and uncle. The applicant made a written request to be provided with a legal aid lawyer. On the same day an expert examination of fingerprints and a forensic examination were ordered and on 3 May 2001 the applicant was remanded in custody.
8. On 4 May 2001 legal aid counsel, Ms P., was appointed to assist the applicant, and he was charged with aggravated murder on 10 May 2001.
9. From May to September a number of expert examinations were carried out. Subsequently the applicant received copies of orders for such examinations. He signed each of them confirming their receipt and indicating that he had no comments or requests.
10. On 30 September 2001 the detention order was lifted and replaced with an undertaking not to leave his place of residence.
11. In October 2001 the applicant's former cellmate in the detention facility, Mr Zh., testified that the applicant had told him in detail how he had murdered his father and another man.
12. On unidentified date the applicant's friend, Mr R., made a witness statement that



> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 ... 16 17 18

	Поделиться:	Tweet