Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.01.2009 "Дело "Облов (Oblov) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

екретарь Секции Суда
Серен НИЛЬСЕН





EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF OBLOV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 22674/02)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 15.I.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 Oblov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina {Vajic},
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 December 2008,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 22674/02) 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 Aleksandr Sergeyevich Oblov ("the applicant"), on 2 February 2001.
2. The applicant was represented by Ms S. Burayeva, a lawyer practising in Ulan-Ude. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 27 March 2006 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).

THE FACTS

4. The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Sagan-Nur in the Buryatia Republic.

A. First trial

5. On 10 May 1998 the applicant, then fifteen years of age, was arrested. On 12 May 1998 he was charged with causing grievous bodily harm occasioning the death of the victim. On 13 May 1998 the prosecutor refused to admit Ms S as counsel and appointed another lawyer to represent the applicant. It appears that the applicant pleaded guilty, but later retracted his plea alleging that he had confessed under duress. After an inquiry into the matter, the investigator decided not to prosecute the officers. Apparently, the applicant did not contest this decision.
6. In November 1998 the applicant was charged with murder. After the completion of the preliminary investigation on 13 November 1998, the case was listed for trial before the Mukhorshibirskiy District Court of the Buryatia Republic. On 24 November 1998 the District Court returned the case to the prosecutor for further investigation. On 19 January 1999 the investigation was suspended because a forensic report had been ordered. On the same date, the applicant was released but ordered to remain in town.
7. The preliminary investigation was resumed in June 1999. On 15 July 1999 the prosecutor discontinued the criminal case against the applicant. This decision was quashed on 6 September 1999 and the proceedings were resumed.
8. On 26 November 1999 the District Court again decided to return the criminal case to the prosecutor for further investigation. The applicant was placed in custody. On 11 January 2000 the Supreme Court of the Buryatia Republic quashed the decision of 26 November 1999. It appears that on 1 March 2000 another forensic report was ordered, and the applicant was released but ordered to remain in town. The forensic report was submitted to the trial court on 18 May 2000.
9. On 23 June 2000 the District Court found the a



> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8 ... 9 10

	Поделиться:	Tweet