CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 avril 2009

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 }   337 23.4.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SIBGATULLIN v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Sibgatullin v. Russia (application no. 32165/02). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of holding the appeal hearings of the applicant’s criminal case in his absence.   The applicant submitted no claim under Article 41 (just satisfaction) for damages within the required time limit. Accordingly, the Court made no such award.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, German Sibgatullin, is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Nizhniy Tagil (Russia).   On 22 February 2002 Mr Sibgatullin was found guilty of three murders and theft and was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment. He lodged an appeal against this judgment; he did not expressly state that he wished to take part in the appeal hearing.   On 15 August 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (“the Supreme Court”) examined the applicant’s appeal (“the first appeal hearing”) and dismissed it. Neither the applicant nor his counsel were present at that hearing. This decision was quashed on 5 April 2006 and the case was remitted for a fresh examination, following an application by the Deputy Prosecutor General for supervisory review of the appeal decision, on the ground that Mr Sibgatullin and his lawyer had not been properly notified of the appeal hearing.   On 23 May 2006, the applicant was informed by a telegram that “his case [would] be heard by the Supreme Court on 29 June 2006”.   On 29 June 2006 the fresh appeal hearing (“the second appeal hearing”) was held by the Supreme Court in the absence of Mr Sibgatullin and his counsel. The prosecutor requested that the applicant’s conviction on three counts of murder be upheld and that the sentence imposed for theft be lifted; the applicant was sentenced to nineteen years and six months’ imprisonment.   On 4 July 2006 Mr Sibgatullin – who at some point had learnt that the first appeal decision had been quashed on 5 April 2006 – sent additional grounds of appeal to the appeal court and lodged a special request for leave to appear at the appeal hearing.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 December 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article   6, the applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair because appeal hearings had been held in his absence.   Decision of the Court   Article 6   §§   1 and   3   (c)   The Court noted that the appeal court had been called on to make a full assessment, both factually and legally, of the applicant’s guilt or innocence regarding the charges of the first and third murders. These proceedings were of utmost importance for Mr Sibgatullin who had been sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment at first instance and who had not been represented at the second appeal hearing.   The appeal court could not properly determine the issues before it without a direct assessment of the evidence given by the applicant in person. Neither could it ensure equality of arms between the parties without giving Mr Sibgatullin the opportunity to reply to the observations made by the prosecutor at the hearing. It was not disputed that the first appeal proceedings had fallen short of the guarantees of fair trial because neither the applicant nor his legal counsel had been duly notified of the appeal hearing.   Furthermore the Court considered that the second appeal hearing had not complied with the requirements of fairness because Mr Sibgatullin had again not been duly notified of that hearing – and the appeal court had not verified that he had been – and the applicant had not waived his right to take part in the hearing in an unequivocal manner. Therefore the measures taken by the authorities had failed to provide appropriate redress to Mr Sibgatullin in respect of the violation of his right to take part in the first appeal hearing.   The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) on account of holding both appeal hearings in the applicant’s absence.     Judges Rozakis, Spielmann and Malinverni expressed concurring opinions, which are annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)     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 Convention, 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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.