t he was not provided with adequate legal assistance at the hearing before the court of appeal and that he could not effectively participate in that hearing in person as he could only connect with the courtroom by video link. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"1. In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing... by a... tribunal...
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
... (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing..."
A. Admissibility
1. Victim status
32. The Government pointed out that on 4 July 2007 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the judicial decision in question precisely on the grounds that the applicant had been deprived of the effective legal assistance and remitted the case for a fresh examination by the appeal instance. They therefore contended that the applicant had lost his victim status. In support of this statement they relied on the Court's case-law, according to which the most appropriate form of redress for a violation of Article 6 in the criminal proceedings would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings. In this connection they claimed that the decision of the Presidium constituted an acknowledgment of a violation and afforded redress in the form of fresh proceedings before the court of appeal.
33. The applicant maintained his complaints claiming that in the new proceedings following the quashing his rights had not been restored. In particular, he was not brought to the courtroom in person, despite his requests, and he was deprived of the effective communication with court-appointed legal counsel. He therefore requested the Court to confirm his victim status and to examine the merits of his application.
34. As regards the Government's objection regarding the victim status of the applicant, the Court reiterates that an applicant is deprived of his or her status as a victim if the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded appropriate and sufficient redress for, a breach of the Convention (see, for example, Scordino v. Italy (No. 1) [GC], No. 36813/97, § 178 - 93, ECHR 2006-...).
35. As regards the first condition, namely the acknowledgement of a violation of the Convention, the Court considers that the Presidium's decision to quash the appeal decision of 31 October 2002 does amount to an acknowledgment that there had been a breach of Article 6 of the Convention.
36. With regard to the second condition, namely appropriate and sufficient redress, the Court must ascertain whether the measures taken by the authorities, in the particular circumstances of the instant case, afforded the applicant appropriate redress in order to determine whether he could still claim to be a victim. As the Government's objection under this head is closely linked to the merits of the applicant's complaints, the Court decides to join them.
2. Other points on admissibility
37. The Court notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. The Court further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. The parties' submissions
38. The applicant claimed that in the determination of the criminal charges against him there had been a breach of his right to legal assistance. In the proceedings before the Supreme Court on 31 October 2002 he had had no lawyer at all, and in the subsequent retrial by the same instance the court-appointed lawyer was introduced to him at the hearing by video lin
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 ... 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
