CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 18 juin 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   450 18.6.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING BYKOV v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today Wednesday 18 June 2008 at 9 a.m. , in the case of Bykov v. Russia (application no.   4378/02).   The hearing will be broadcast from 2.30 p.m. on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     The applicant   The applicant, Anatoliy Petrovich Bykov, is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Krasnoyarsk (Russia). He was chairman of the board of the Krasnoyarsk Aluminium Plant from 1997 to 1999. At the time of his arrest in October 2000 he was a major shareholder and an executive of a corporation called OAO   Krasenergomash-Holding and a founder of a number of affiliated firms. He was also a member of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Parliamentary Assembly.   Summary of the facts   The case concerns, in particular, Mr Bykov’s complaint that he was trapped by the police into incriminating himself.   In September 2000 Mr   Bykov allegedly ordered   V., a member of his entourage, to kill Mr   S., a former business associate. V.   did not comply with the order, but on 18   September 2000 he reported the applicant to the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”).   The FSB and the police decided to conduct a covert operation to obtain evidence of the applicant’s intention to murder   S. On 29   September 2000 the police staged the discovery of two dead bodies at S.’s home. They officially announced in the media that one of those killed had been identified as S. The other man was his business partner, Mr   I.   On 3   October 2000, V.   went to see the applicant at his home. He carried a hidden radio-transmitting device while a police officer outside received and recorded the transmission. Following the instructions he had been given, V.   engaged the applicant in conversation, telling him that he had carried out the murder. As proof he handed the applicant several objects borrowed from   S. and   I. The police obtained a 16-minute recording of the conversation between V.   and the applicant.   On 4   October 2000 the applicant’s house was searched. The objects V.   had given him were seized. The applicant was arrested and remanded in custody. He was charged with conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to acquire, possess and handle firearms.   The applicant’s pre-trial detention was prolonged several times and his numerous appeals and requests for release were rejected because of the gravity of the charges against him and the risk that he might abscond and bring pressure to bear on the witnesses.   Two voice experts were appointed to examine the recording of the applicant’s conversation with   V. They found that V.   had shown subordination to the applicant, that the applicant had shown no sign of mistrusting V.’s confession to the murder and that he had insistently questioned V.   on the technical details of its execution. They established that V.   and the applicant had a close relationship and that the applicant played an instructive role in the conversation.   On 19   June 2002 the applicant was found guilty on both counts and sentenced to six and a half years’ imprisonment. He was conditionally released on five years’ probation. The sentence was upheld on appeal on 1   October 2002.   On 22   June 2004 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined the case in supervisory proceedings. It found the applicant guilty of “incitement to commit a crime involving a murder”, and not “conspiracy to murder”. The rest of the judgment, including the sentence, remained unchanged.   Complaints   Relying on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant alleges that his pre-trial detention was excessively long and that it was successively extended without any indication of relevant and sufficient reasons. Under Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, he complained of the unfairness of the proceedings against him, the police having set a trap to trick him into incriminating himself in his conversation with   V. and the court having allowed the recording of the conversation as evidence in the trial. The applicant also complains that the covert operation involved an unlawful intrusion into his home and that the interception and recording of his conversation with Mr   V. amounted to interference with his private life and his correspondence, in violation of Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21   December 2001 and declared admissible on 7   September 2006. On 22   November 2007 the Chamber to which the case was assigned relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber [1] .   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Nicolas Bratza (British), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese) Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), George Nicolaou (Cypriot), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgian), judges , Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), Mark Villiger (Swiss) [2] , substitute judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Deputy Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Veronika Milinchuk , Agent ,   Inga Mayke , Yana Tsimbalova , Alexei Zazulskiy ,   Konstantin Yermolin , Advisers ;   Applicant :   Detlef Krauss , Jens-Christian Pastille , Genrikh Padva ,   Jelena Kvjatkovska , Counsel .   Anatoliy Bykov will also attend the hearing.   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date. [3]   Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.