CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 septembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     689 24.09.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgment [1] Pishchalnikov v. Russia (application no. 7025/04 )   INTENSIVE INTERROGATION   BY POLICE IN THE ABSENCE OF A LAWYER   Two violations of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights.     Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 5,500   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. ( The judgment is available only in English .)   Principal facts   The applicant, Aleksandr Pishchalnikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and, until his arrest, lived in the town of Revda in the Sverdlovsk Region (Russia).   In December 1998, Mr Pishchalnikov was arrested on suspicion of aggravated robbery. He was interrogated – both on the day of his arrest and immediately on the following day – in the absence of a lawyer, although he had clearly indicated a defence counsel he wanted to represent him. During these interrogations the applicant confessed to having taken part in the activities of a criminal group which included a murder, kidnapping, hijacking and unlawful possession of weapons.   During subsequent interrogations between January and August 1999 the applicant refused legal assistance; he was advised by a legal aid lawyer on a few occasions after that.   The investigation was completed in January 2000 and Mr Pishchalnikov studied the file until June 2000. The file was sent to court in August 2000, yet the first hearing was only held at the end of May 2001. Mr Pishchalnikov was convicted in January 2002 of several crimes, including aggravated murder, torture, kidnapping, theft and robbery. He appealed before the Supreme Court which upheld partially the conviction and sentenced him to 20 years in prison. Mr Pishchalnikov was not assisted by a lawyer during his appeal.   Complaint(s), procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6, Mr Pishchalnikov complained that he had not been legally represented at crucial stages in the proceedings, that the lawyer provided to him had not assisted him effectively, and that the proceedings against him had lasted for too long.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 5 January 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges composed as follows   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), judges , and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court [2]   Absence of a lawyer   The Court first noted that, as soon as arrested, Mr Pishchalnikov had asked sufficiently clearly for a specific lawyer to represent him. The authorities had not contacted that lawyer neither had they offered free legal assistance to Mr Pishchalnikov. Instead they had interrogated him intensely in the first few days after his arrest, in the absence of a lawyer, in an effort to generate the evidence aiding the prosecution’s case. Subsequently, the confessions he had made had been decisive for his conviction.   In addition, the Court was not convinced that Mr Pishchalnikov had fully realised the consequences of waiving his right to be legally represented. While the evidence collected suggested that he had systematically refused counsel, it had been unexplainable that during purely formal procedural investigative steps the applicant had always been assisted by legal aid counsel, while he had usually refused legal assistance when he had to answer the investigators’ questions. Furthermore, after the applicant had been assisted by legal aid counsel on a mandatory basis and had been interrogated in counsel’s presence, he had denied his confession statements made to the investigators during the first two days after his arrest.   Consequently, the Court found that the lack of legal assistance to Mr Pishchalnikov at the initial stages of police questioning had affected irreversibly his defence rights and undermined the possibility of him receiving a fair trial. There had therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1.   The Court considered that the damage caused to Mr Pishchalnikov’s rights as a result of him not having had a lawyer during the initial police questioning was of such a magnitude that it was not necessary to examine separately whether he had been effectively assisted by a lawyer at the later stages of the proceedings.   Length of proceedings   The Court observed that the proceedings had lasted approximately four years and eight months for two levels of jurisdiction. There had been substantial periods of inactivity which had been attributable to the domestic authorities and for which the Government had not submitted any satisfactory explanation. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as the length of the criminal proceedings against Mr Pishchalnikov had been excessive.   ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments, with the composition of the Court, are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   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.