(Application no. 15336/02)
9 April 2009
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 Eduard Chistyakov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 March 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. First round of proceedings
B. Supervisory review and second round of proceedings
“Ruling on the discontinuation of the case, the [appeal] court referred to the Rules on forensic examination of corpse, annexed to the Decree 407 of 10 December 1996... According to paragraph 1.11 of the Rules, ‘the scope and method of the expert examination of a corpse is determined by the expert, taking account of the aim and objectives of the examination, the requirements of substantiation and objectivity of the expert’s conclusions, directions of the normative instructions and guidelines.’
So, the appeal court ruled that the insufficiency of the corpse examination carried out by the applicant ...had been due to his wrong choice as regards the scope and method of examination...
[T]he case file did not contain all normative documents regarding the process of an expert examination.
The investigating authority and the court concluded that [the applicant] had acted in gross disregard of the above Rules, only on the basis of excerpts from these Rules. This did not allow for a thorough examination of the case...”
The prosecutor was present at the hearing and made submissions to the Presidium of the Regional Court. According to the applicant, neither he nor his counsel was apprised of this hearing and consequently could not attend it.
C. Supervisory review and third round of proceedings
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AS REGARDS THE SUPERVISORY RULING OF 21 SEPTEMBER 2001
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time ... by [a] ... tribunal...”
1. Quashing of the final judgment
2. Procedural guarantees in supervisory review proceedings
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AS REGARDS THE SUPERVISORY RULING OF 20 SEPTEMBER 2002
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 4 OF PROTOCOL No. 7
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“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.”
B. Default interest
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
(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 on the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 April 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis