CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 février 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 122 August-September 2009 Sakhnovskiy v. Russia (referral) - 21272/03 Judgment 5.2.2009 [Section I] Article 6 Article 6-3-c Defence through legal assistance Lack of personal contact prior to appeal hearing with legal-aid counsel who had to plead the applicant’s case on the basis of submissions of another lawyer: case referred to the Grand Chamber   In 2001 the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. In 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal. In 2007 the Presidium of the Supreme Court granted a request for supervisory review, quashed the appeal decision and remitted the case for fresh examination. In the new appeal proceedings the applicant followed the hearing from a detention facility by video link as the Supreme Court rejected his request to attend it in person. Before the start of the hearing he was introduced to his new legal-aid counsel who was present in the courtroom and they were allowed fifteen minutes of confidential communication by video link. The applicant attempted to refuse the assistance of the counsel on the grounds that he had never met her in person. The Supreme Court rejected his objection to the counsel’s assistance as unreasonable, noting that the applicant had not requested replacement counsel or leave to retain counsel privately. In a separate decision the Supreme Court decided that it would not accept a new statement of appeal from the applicant and would consider his position on the basis of the submissions made by his former counsel before the previous appeal hearing in 2002. On the same day the Supreme Court examined the merits of the case and upheld the judgment of 2001. In a judgment of 5   February 2009 a Chamber of the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§   1 and 3   (c), as the timing of the counsel’s appointment had made it difficult, if not impossible, for her to agree with the applicant on the line of defence she would pursue at the hearing. The absence of personal contact with the applicant at the hearing and the absence of any discussion with him in advance of the hearing, combined with the fact that she had had to plead the case on the basis of the points of appeal lodged five years earlier by another lawyer, had reduced the counsel’s appearance at the appeal hearing to a mere formality. The applicant’s dissatisfaction with the manner in which his legal assistance had been organised had been made sufficiently clear to the Supreme Court. In the circumstances, the Chamber considered that the reasons given by the applicant for his refusal to be assisted by the counsel in question were legitimate and justified in the circumstances. Consequently, his conduct did not relieve the authorities of their obligation to take further steps to guarantee the effectiveness of his defence. On 14 September 2009 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes