CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 septembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 12 September 2014   FIRST SECTION Application no. 31917/07 Vladimir Iosifovich BOCHAROV against Russia lodged on 14 June 2007 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Vladimir Iosifovich Bocharov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Nizhniy Tagil. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 14 October 2005 the applicant voluntarily came to the police to report that he had committed manslaughter of Ms O. On the same date he was charged with her murder. On 15 October 2005 the applicant was placed in custody in remand prison no. 3 of Nizhniy Tagil. On 31 October 2005 the applicant wrote to the Leninskiy District Court of Nizhniy Tagil (“the district court”) complaining about unspecified “psychological and physical pressure” exercised by an investigator in charge of his case. On 10 November 2005 a judge returned the letter to the applicant noting that the subject matter of the complaint was not clear. On 15 November 2005 the applicant was subjected to a psychiatric expert examination, which established that he had committed manslaughter while in the state of temporary incapacity ( «состояние физиологического аффекта» ). On 9 December 2005 the investigation file was transferred for trial to the district court. On 29 March 2006 the district court ordered another psychiatric expert examination of the applicant upon the prosecutor’s request. The applicant complained about the decision to a higher court but was informed that no appeal lied against the decision. The expert examination did not take place as the applicant refused to cooperate with psychiatrists. On 1 June 2006 the applicant was informed that a court hearing on the issue of extending his detention had been scheduled on   2   June   2006. On 2 June 2006 the district court held a detention hearing in the applicant’s absence and in the presence of court-appointed counsel and extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 2 September 2006. The applicant appealed. In the course of the trial a prosecutor requested that the applicant be subjected to another psychiatric expert examination. On 7 July 2006 the district court acceded to the prosecutor’s request. The applicant lodged a statement of appeal on an unspecified date. On 24 August 2006 the district court held a hearing in the applicant’s absence and in the presence of court-appointed counsel and extended the applicant’s detention until 2 December 2006. The applicant was notified of the hearing on the same date. Later he appealed against the decision. On 25 September 2006 the second psychiatric expert examination report was drawn up stating that the applicant had been fully capable of understanding the consequences of his actions at the moment of the crime. On 24 October 2006 the district court returned the statement of appeal against the decision of 7 July 2006 to the applicant unexamined for the reason that no appeal lied from decisions to accede to a party’s request. On 26 October 2006 the district court found the applicant guilty of murder of Ms O. and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment. On 8 December 2006 the Sverldovsk Regional Court (“the regional court”) examined in the applicant’s absence the appeal against the detention order of   2   June 2006 and dismissed it. It appears that the applicant was not represented by counsel. The delay in examining the appeal remained unexplained. On 14 February 2007 the regional court upheld the applicant’s conviction of 26 October 2006 on appeal. The applicant submits that he was notified of the outcome of the appeal hearing on 5 April 2007. On 30 March 2007 the regional court examined the appeal against the detention order of 24 August 2006 and dismissed it. The delay in examining the appeal remained unexplained. Neither the applicant nor legal counsel on his behalf were present at the hearing. On 29 October 2009 the applicant’s sentence was brought into conformity with the amended criminal-law provisions and diminished to nine years and nine months’ imprisonment. On 2 April 2013 the Cherdynskiy District Court of the Perm Region released the applicant on parole. COMPLAINT The applicant complains in substance under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the district court held the detention hearings of 2 June and 24   July 2006 in his absence and that his appeals against the detention orders were not examined “speedily”.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant present at the appeal hearing of 8 December   2006? Was he represented by legal counsel on that occasion? When did the applicant take cognisance of the outcome of the hearing relating to the extension of his pre-trial detention?   2.     Was the applicant afforded an opportunity to be present at the hearings of 2 June and 24 August 2006 and at the appeal hearings of 8   December 2006 and 30 March 2007? Did the domestic courts consider the question whether the applicant had been summoned to the hearings and whether his personal participation was required for the effective review of the lawfulness of his continued detention? Was the applicant provided with an opportunity to be effectively represented before the Leninskiy District Court of Nizhniy Tagil and the Sverdlovsk Regional Court by legal counsel familiar with his case during the hearings of 2   June, 24 August, 8   December 2006 and 30 March 2007 (see Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan , no. 37138/06, §§   207-08, 9   November 2010)?   3.     Were the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of 2   June and 24 August 2006 examined “speedily”, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?