CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 31 janvier 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 104 January 2008 Ryabov v. Russia - 3896/04 Judgment 31.1.2008 [Section I] Article 34 Hinder the exercise of the right of petition Government representative orders inquiry into the financial arrangements between the applicant and his representative before the Court: violation   Facts : In 2003 the applicant was convicted of the rape of a seven-year-old girl and sentenced to 12   years and six months’ imprisonment. At no stage of the proceedings was he given the opportunity to examine a witness who had made a written statement about the rape or the expert who had drawn up the medical report. In 2006 the Supreme Court acknowledged a violation of the applicant’s right to examine witnesses, as guaranteed by Article   6   § 3   (d) of the Convention, and ordered a re-trial. Meanwhile, in 2004 the applicant brought his case before the European Court and his complaint under Article   6   §   3 (d) was communicated to the respondent Government. In November 2005, following the submission of the Government’s comments on the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction in the Court proceedings, the Representative of the Russian Government asked the competent domestic authorities to verify the lawfulness of the legal-assistance agreement between the applicant and his representative before the Court, asserting that she had imposed a financial obligation on the applicant without his knowledge. Pursuant to that request, the authorities required the applicant’s lawyers to produce documents concerning their legal relationship with the applicant. They also visited the applicant in prison and attempted to compel him to give a written statement about his contacts with his lawyer. They later decided that the legal-assistance agreement between the applicant and his lawyer was contrary to domestic legislation and requested the Bar Association to take appropriate measures against the lawyer(s). Law : Article   6   §   3 (d) – Having regard to the Supreme Court’s decision indicating that a new trial should be held in the applicant’s case, the Court concluded that the national authorities had both acknowledged, and then afforded redress for, the alleged breach of the Convention: no longer a victim . Article   34 – As a matter of principle it was inappropriate for the authorities of a respondent State to enter into direct contact with an applicant before the European Court on the pretext that “forged documents had been submitted in other cases”. It was furthermore unacceptable for the domestic authorities to ask for privileged information from the applicant’s lawyer’s office, bearing in mind that the specific body carrying out the enquiry was not even competent to do so, nor had there been any criminal investigation which would have justified such actions. On the contrary, the applicant had consistently maintained that he was satisfied with the work of his representative and fully aware of the legal-assistance agreement and the amounts indicated therein. The allegation of the Russian authorities that the agreements had been signed without the applicant’s knowledge were therefore mere personal conjecture without any basis in fact. In conclusion, the steps taken by the Russian Government to enquire about the financial arrangements between the applicant and his lawyer lacked any basis in law or fact and had specifically targeted the applicant’s representative in order to prevent her from participating in the Strasbourg proceedings. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). (see also Fedotova v. Russia , no.   73225/01, 13 April 2006, and Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no.   23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV)   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes