European Court of Human Rights

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 63053/09
Stanislav Yevgenyevich MISYUKEVICH
against Russia
lodged on 26 October 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Stanislav Yevgenyevich Misyukevich, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Nizhniy Tagil.

1.  Criminal proceedings

On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with massive fraud.

On 19 August 2009 the Leninskiy District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to five and a half years’ imprisonment. During the trial the applicant was represented by his counsel, Mr F.

On an unspecified date the applicant filed an appeal.

On 23 October 2009 the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment on appeal. It follows from the appeal judgment that only the applicant, but not his counsel or prosecutor, was present in the hearing. Nonetheless, the Regional Court proceeded with the hearing, without verifying whether the other participants had been duly informed about the date and time of the hearing, and rejected the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing on account of absence of Mr F.

2.  Conditions of detention

On 19 August 2009 the applicant was detained and placed in remand prison IZ-66/1 of Yekaterinburg, where he stayed until 27 October 2009 in the following conditions:

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the conditions of his pre-trial detention were inhuman and degrading. With reference to Article 6, he complains that the absence of his lawyer from the appeal hearing infringed his right to fair trial and alleges a number of other violations related to the criminal proceedings.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Were the conditions of the applicant’s detention in remand prison IZ-66/1 of Yekaterinburg compatible with Article 3 of the Convention? If the Government consider that the occupancy numbers given by the applicant were inaccurate, they are invited to produce extracts from the prison population register covering at least one day per week during the entire period of the applicant’s detention.

2.  Was the applicant’s lawyer informed of the appeal hearing of 23 October 2009 timely and in due manner? If not, did the examination of the case in his absence comply with the guarantees of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?