Source: http://zaki.ru/pagesnew.php?id=58198
Timestamp: 2018-03-17 23:56:39
Document Index: 366631534

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 21272', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1']

Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 02.11.2010 «Дело Сахновский (Sakhnovskiy) против России» [англ.], стр № 1 - Zaki.ru
Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 02.11.2010 «Дело Сахновский (Sakhnovskiy) против России» [англ.]
(Application No. 21272/03)
(Strasbourg, 2.XI.2010)
<*> This judgment is final but may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sakhnovskiy v. Russia,
{Francoise} <*> Tulkens,
{Danute Jociene},
Dragoljub {Popovic},
Isabelle {Berro-Lefevre},
{Paivi Hirvela},
Having deliberated in private on 20 January 2010 and on 22 September 2010,
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. In the proceedings before the Chamber the applicant was granted leave for self-representation. In the proceedings before the Grand Chamber the applicant was granted legal aid. He was represented by Ms K. Moskalenko and Ms O. Preobrazhenskaya, lawyers practising in Moscow, and Ms N. Lisman, lawyer practising in Boston (the United States). The Russian Government ("the Government") were initially represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by their Representative, Mr G. Matyushkin.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that the criminal proceedings against him had been conducted in violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, claiming that in the appeal proceedings he had not been given free legal assistance and that, moreover, he had been unable to defend himself effectively because he had communicated with the court of appeal by video link.
4. The application was allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (former Article 27 § 1 of the Convention, now Article 26) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.
5. On 15 January 2009 a Chamber of that Section composed of the following judges: Christos Rozakis, Anatoly Kovler, Elisabeth Steiner, Dean Spielmann, Sverre Erik Jebens, Giorgio Malinverni and George Nicolaou, assisted by {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar, examined the admissibility and merits of the case (former Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, now Article 29 § 1). The Chamber joined to the merits the Government's objection concerning the applicant's victim status, declared the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention admissible, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in that the applicant had not received effective legal assistance during the appeal proceedings in his criminal case. It made an award in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. Judges Rozakis, Sp