CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 février 2013

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom: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. 160 February 2013 Yefimenko v. Russia - 152/04 Judgment 12.2.2013 [Section I] Article 5 Article 5-1-a After conviction Execution during several years of prison service imposed by a court “not established by law”: violation   Facts – In 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. His case was sent to the regional court for trial by a professional judge sitting with two lay judges. The applicant objected to the participation of the lay judges on the grounds that they had served more than once a year between 1998 and 2002 in breach of the Lay Judges Act. His objection was dismissed and on 24   April 2003 he was convicted by the trial court. In September 2009 the Supreme Court quashed his conviction following supervisory-review proceedings and ordered a retrial after noting certain irregularities relating to the lists of lay judges sitting in the regional court at the material time. The Presidium of the Supreme Court later confirmed that decision, but on amended grounds after noting that since there was no indication that the lay judges in the applicant’s case were on the list of lay assessors, the trial court had not been established by law. The applicant remained in detention pending his retrial, which ended with his being sentenced to nineteen and a half years’ imprisonment. In his application to the European Court, the applicant argued, inter alia , that the period of imprisonment he had served under the original trial judgment had not complied with the requirements of Article 5 §   1 of the Convention. Law – Article 5 § 1 (a): It was common ground that the regional court had in principle had jurisdiction to take the decision in issue. However, both during and after the trial the applicant had sought to substantiate and obtain confirmation of his allegations of a breach of the Lay Judges Act in relation to the composition of that court. Having obtained no prompt and adequate redress in ordinary appeal proceedings in relation to those allegations, he had been required to serve the prison sentence imposed by the trial court on 24   April 2003. However, as had been acknowledged by the Supreme Court in the supervisory-review proceedings years after the trial, the composition of the trial court had not been “established by law” as regards two of the judges. There was no indication that they had received any authority to sit as lay judges in the applicant’s case, which had ended with a heavy prison sentence. There had thus been a gross and obvious irregularity in respect of the period of the applicant’s detention under the judgment of 24   April 2003. The court which convicted him was therefore not “competent” and his detention was not “lawful” within the meaning of Article 5 §   1   (a) of the Convention. In view of the gravity of the violation and noting the absence of adequate acknowledgment and redress, the Court concluded that the applicant’s detention on the basis of the trial judgment had been in breach of Article 5 §   1. Conclusion : violation (six votes to one). The Court also found, unanimously, a violation of Articles   3, 8 and 13   of the Convention and a failure by the respondent State to comply with its obligation under Article   34. Article 41: EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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