CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 novembre 2011

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2D3BC823 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 146 November 2011 Khodorkovskiy v. Russia (dec.) - 11082/06 Decision 8.11.2011 [Section I] Article 6 Article 6-3 Rights of defence Criminal trial of a prominent Yukos board member: admissible   The applicant was a board member and one of the major shareholders of the Yukos oil company. In 2003 he was charged with various counts of business fraud and tax evasion. He alleges that during the criminal proceedings against him, his lawyers were at times searched when leaving his remand prison and documents were seized from them. Their offices were also searched on several occasions and disciplinary proceedings were instituted against them. The applicant’s defence team was given some six months to prepare their case, the investigation file for which contained some 55,000 pages. During that time the applicant did not receive his own copy, but was only permitted to read the documents in the presence of the investigator. When the trial started, the applicant’s case was joined with another two co-accused. At the hearings, the applicant was held in a metal cage and was allowed to communicate with his lawyers only with the authorisation of the trial judge. In February 2005 the same court, presided over by the same judge, gave judgment in the case of another senior manager in the Yukos group. The applicant’s lawyers subsequently sought recusal of the presiding judge, but their request was not granted. The applicant was ultimately sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. He was sent to serve his prison sentence in Siberia, some 6,000 kilometres from Moscow, as a result of which family visits have been infrequent. His lawyers’ visits have been restricted by the stringent prison regime and his foreign lawyers representing him before the European Court were refused entry visas. Admissible under Article 6 § 1 (impartiality), Article 6 §   2 (presumption of innocence), Article 6 §§   1 and   3   (b), (c) and   (d) (rights of defence), Article   7 (unforeseeability of law), Article   8 (respect for family life), Article   18 (alleged political motivation for prosecution) and Article   34 of the Convention, and under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (property rights). (See also Khodorkovskiy v. Russia , no.   5829/04, 31   May 2011, Information Note no. 141 ; and Lebedev v.   Russia (dec.), no.   13772/05, 27   May 2010)   © 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