BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ALDOSHKINA v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 66041/01)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 October 2006
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Aldoshkina v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis,
President,
Mr L. Loucaides,
Mrs F. Tulkens,
Mrs N.
Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 21 September 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The case originated in an application (no. 66041/01)
against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34
of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian
national, Ms Irina Igorevna Aldoshkina, on 27 November 2000.
- The Russian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent, Mr P. Laptev, Representative of
the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- The applicant alleged, in particular, a violation of
her right to defend herself before the supervisory-review instance.
- The application was allocated to the First Section of
the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within
that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 §
1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.
- By a decision of 16 June 2005, the Court declared the
application partly admissible.
- The Government but not the applicant filed observations
on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Samara. She
is a former chief tax inspector.
- On 27 August 1998 the applicant was committed to stand
trial on charges of abuse of position and concerted extortion of a
bribe.
- On 28 October 1998 the Samara Regional Court delivered
its judgment. It found the applicant guilty of fraud committed in
concert with another person through use of her official position, an
offence under Article 159 § 2 (a) and (v) of the Criminal Code.
She was sentenced to a fine of 1,000 minimum wages (approximately EUR
5,000) and prohibited from holding any positions in tax authorities
for three years.
- On 17 March 1999 the Supreme Court of the Russian
Federation upheld the conviction on appeal. Counsel for the applicant
was present at the hearing.
- As no ordinary appeal lay against the appeal judgment,
counsel for the applicant introduced an application for supervisory
review with the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian
Federation. He sought a reversal of the judgments passed in the
applicant's case in order to redress the violations of the rights of
the defence.
- On 24 February 2000 a deputy president of the Supreme
Court of the Russian Federation lodged an application for
supervisory-review with the Presidium of that court. Although the
text of the application has not been made available to the Court, it
appears from the Government's submissions that he asked for a
recharacterisation of the applicant's offence which, in his opinion,
should be qualified as an attempt to commit fraud.
- On 24 May 2000 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of
the Russian Federation examined the application for supervisory
review. The applicant and her counsel were not summoned to the
hearing and did not attend it. The Presidium heard a report by the
judge rapporteur and statements by a deputy Prosecutor General who
spoke in support of the recharacterisation. The Presidium found that
the offence imputed to the applicant had not been brought to
completion. On that ground the Presidium recharacterised the
applicant's offence as an attempt to commit fraud (Article 159 §
2 (a) and (v) of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 30 §
3). The applicant's sentence remained unaffected.
- On 29 May 2000 a copy of the Presidium's decision was
mailed to the applicant.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. The RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure (in force at
the material time)
- Article 254 required that the court examine the case
within the scope of the charges brought against the defendant. The
charge could be amended by the court, provided that such an amendment
did not aggravate the situation of the defendant or violate his right
to defend himself.
- Chapter 30 described the power of certain State
officials to contest criminal judgments by way of supervisory-review
proceedings in which the case could be reviewed on points of law and
procedure. The supervisory-review proceedings were distinct from
review of a case on account of newly discovered facts. The power to
lodge an application for supervisory review could be exercised by the
Prosecutor General, the presidents of the Supreme Court of the
Russian Federation and of the regional courts and their deputies. A
party to the proceedings could petition these officials for
institution of supervisory-review proceedings (Article 371).
- The supervisory-review instance was not bound by the
scope of the application for supervisory review and had to review the
criminal case in its entirety. It could uphold, amend or quash any of
the earlier judgments, vary the sentence, discontinue the criminal
proceedings or remit the matter for a new consideration by the trial
or appeal court. It could not, however, increase the sentence or
recharacterise the defendant's actions as a more serious offence
(Article 380).
- Article 377 established that a prosecutor had to be
present at the supervisory-review hearing. If necessary, the
convicted person and counsel could be summoned to the hearing in
order to make submissions. If summoned to the hearing, the defendant
and counsel should be able to study the application for supervisory
review.
B. Case-law of the Constitutional Court
- In Ruling no. 2-P of 14 February 2000, the
Constitutional Court declared Article 377 incompatible with the
Russian Constitution to the extent that it permitted the
supervisory-review instance to decide on an application for
supervisory review which was to the detriment of the convicted or
acquitted person. The Court held that such person and his or her
counsel should be able to study the application, they should be
notified about the date and place of the hearing and given an
opportunity to present their position on the arguments in the
application.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION
- The applicant complained about procedural
irregularities in the criminal proceedings against her. The Court
will examine the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention which
reads, in the relevant parts, as follows:
“1. In the determination of ... any
criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and
public hearing ... by a ... tribunal...
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence
has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language
which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for
the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through
legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient
means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the
interests of justice so require...”
- The applicant submitted that she had applied to the
supervisory-review instance with a view to having the conviction
reversed and the proceedings discontinued because the guilty verdict
had contradicted the established facts. However, the deputy president
had preferred a completely different ground for supervisory-review,
namely a recharacterisation of her actions as an attempt to commit
fraud. Neither she nor her counsel had been informed about the date
of the hearing before the supervisory-review instance. Nor had they
been aware of the contents of the application for supervisory review.
For that reason they had been prevented from making any submissions
or comments, written or oral, and from pleading her innocence.
- The Government conceded that the applicant and her
counsel had not been summoned for the supervisory-review hearing on
24 May 2000. However, their presence had not been required because
the application for supervisory review had not been liable to
aggravate her situation, and their summoning had been a discretionary
power of the supervisory-review instance. In any event, neither the
applicant nor her counsel had sought leave to appear at the hearing.
- The Court has already found a violation of the
fairness requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the
case where the supervisory-review court adopted a different legal
characterisation of the applicant's offence without summoning him to
the hearing and affording him an opportunity to comment on the
application for supervisory review (see Vanyan v. Russia, no.
53203/99, §§ 63-68, 15 December 2005).
- Having regard to its case-law on the subject and the
material submitted by the parties, the Court notes that the
Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
The Presidium of the Supreme Court amended the conviction and adopted
a different legal characterisation of the applicant's actions,
thereby determining a criminal charge against her. The prosecution
was present before the Presidium and made oral submissions in support
of the recharacterisation. The Presidium had to exercise a full
review of the case and could dismiss the application for supervisory
review, quash the conviction and/or the appeal judgment, discontinue
the criminal proceedings, or amend any of the earlier decisions. In
these circumstances, the Court considers that the Presidium court
could not, if the trial were to be fair, determine the applicant's
case in her absence. Had she or her counsel been present, she would
have had an opportunity to plead the case and comment on the
application by the deputy President of the Supreme Court and on the
oral submissions by the prosecutor (see Vanyan, loc. cit.).
- In view of the above considerations the Court finds
that the proceedings before the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the
Russian Federation did not comply with the requirements of fairness.
There has therefore been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention. In the light of this finding it is not necessary to
examine separately whether the provisions of Article 6 § 3 have
been complied with.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The applicant claimed 481,140 euros (EUR) in respect
of compensation for the pecuniary damage, representing her actual and
future loss of salary and other emoluments resulting from her
conviction. She further claimed EUR 500,000 in respect of
compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
- The Government considered these amounts to be
excessive and unreasonable.
- The Court reiterates that the complaints concerning
the applicant's conviction were declared inadmissible in the decision
of 16 June 2005. It rejects therefore her claim for the pecuniary
damage. The Court considers that the applicant must have suffered
frustration and a feeling of injustice as a consequence of the
domestic authorities' failure to ensure her presence at the
supervisory-review hearing. The Court finds that the applicant
suffered non-pecuniary damage, which would not be adequately
compensated by the finding of a violation. Accordingly, making its
assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 1,000,
plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The applicant claimed 18,000 Russian roubles (RUR) in
respect of the legal expenses in the trial and appeal proceedings and
RUR 2,000,000 in respect of the costs of the supervisory-review and
Strasbourg proceedings.
- The Government pointed out that the applicant did not
submit evidence showing that these expenses had been actually made.
- According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is
entitled to reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far as
it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily
incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. The Court reiterates that
the complaints concerning the applicant's trial and conviction were
declared inadmissible. As to the supervisory-review and Strasbourg
proceedings, the applicant did not submit any documents showing that
the expenses had been actually incurred. Accordingly, the Court does
not make an award under this head.
C. Default interest
- The Court considers it appropriate that the default
interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European
Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant,
within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final
in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention, EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the
rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be
chargeable on that amount;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three
months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above
amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European
Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 October 2006, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
