CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 novembre 2005

.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. 80 November 2005 Ozerov v. Russia (dec.) - 64962/01 Decision 3.11.2005 [Section III] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Independent tribunal Criminal court reading out indictment and hearing case in the prosecutor’s absence: admissible   Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant for a traffic offence entailing infliction of bodily harm and a burglary. A district court heard the case in the presence of the applicant, his counsel and the victims. The prosecution was not present and witness L failed to appear, having informed the court that he was on sick leave. The court read out the indictment, heard the applicant and read out L’s statements as recorded during the preliminary investigation. The court also heard another witness, police officer Y, who had apprehended the applicant at the site of the burglary. The applicant was convicted on both counts and sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment and a fine. He appealed to a city court, objecting to the lack of information as to whether the prosecutor had been notified of the hearing and why he had been absent. In assuming the functions of the prosecution the district court had violated the principles of impartiality, equality of arms and adversarial proceedings. Neither had the case file contained any information as to the summoning of witness L. The court’s decision to examine his written statements because he had been unable to attend had been unfounded. The city court upheld the applicant’s conviction and sentence, noting inter alia that according to L’s statement during the preliminary investigation the applicant had participated in the burglary. Article 6 § 1: The applicant complains that the district court was not impartial as it held the trial in the absence of a public prosecutor, thereby assuming his functions. It is in dispute whether or not the applicant objected to the prosecutor’s absence from the district court hearing. Admissible . Article 6 § 3(d): The applicant also complained that the district court had failed to obtain the attendance of witness L. The Court noted however that the defence had stated explicitly that it had no objections to the commencing of the district court trial in the absence of witness L. This was tantamount to an unequivocal waiver of the applicant’s right to confront that witness. Inadmissible .   © 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