THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ICHETOVKINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 12584/05 and 5 others)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 July 2017
FINAL
04/10/2017
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ichetovkina and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Helena Jäderblom, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Luis López Guerra,
Dmitry Dedov,
Pere Pastor Vilanova,
Alena Poláčková,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 June 2017,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in six applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by five Russian nationals and Mr Globinko, who is a national of Uzbekistan. The application numbers, the dates of the lodging of the applications and the dates of their communication, the applicants’ names, their personal details and the names of their legal representatives are set out in the appendix.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.
3. The applicants each alleged that they had not been provided with a legal-aid lawyer during the appeal proceedings in respect of their criminal cases.
4. Mr Dubrovskiy (application no. 45690/05) also complained that he had not been able to present his oral arguments effectively at the appeal proceedings because he had participated in them via a video link. Mr Chernenko (application no. 51264/07) also complained that that he had not had sufficient time to review the appeal statement of his co-defendant after the proceedings in respect of his case had been reopened and that the legal fees incurred in respect of his representation during the trial had been recovered from him.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES
5. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
6. On various dates between 2004 and 2008 the applicants were criminally prosecuted for and convicted of various offences under the Russian legislation then in force. All of the applicants appealed, but their cases were examined by the appeal courts in the absence of their respective counsel. The appeal courts upheld their convictions.
7. In the case of Mr Chernenko (application no. 51264/07) the first‑instance court ordered him to pay the legal fees incurred in respect of his representation in the criminal proceedings against him. On 6 November 2012 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the order of the first-instance court and waived the legal fees that Mr Chernenko had been ordered to reimburse.
8. Following the communication of the applications, the prosecutor lodged requests for supervisory review of the criminal cases of Ms Ichetovkina and Mr Dubrovskiy (applications nos. 12584/05 and 45690/05).
9. Following the communication of the other four applications (nos. 45075/05, 11343/06, 51264/07 and 59378/08), the prosecutor lodged a request for supervisory review of the judgment of the appeal courts. The domestic courts examined his request and expressly acknowledged that these four applicants’ right to legal assistance in the appeal proceedings in respect of their cases had been breached. The applicants’ cases were remitted for re-examination by the same appeal courts. The Court requested additional observations from the Government in respect of these four cases regarding the conformity of the second set of appeal proceedings with the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention. When the applicants’ cases were heard and re-examined by the appeal courts, they were represented by lawyers, and they participated in the respective proceedings via video link.
10. The details of the applicants’ cases are set out in the appendix.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
11. The relevant domestic law governing the presence of lawyers in appeal proceedings in respect of criminal cases at the material time is summed up in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, §§ 31-39, 2 November 2010, Shumikhin v. Russia, no. 7848/06, § 17, 16 July 2015, Volkov and Adamskiy v. Russia, nos. 7614/09 and 30863/10, §§ 21-26, 26 March 2015, Eduard Rozhkov v. Russia, no. 11469/05, §§ 11-13, 31 October 2013, and Nefedov v. Russia, no. 40962/04, § 17, 13 March 2012.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
12. In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given that they concern similar facts and raise identical legal issues under the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 3 (c) OF THE CONVENTION
13. The applicants complained that the authorities had failed to provide them with legal assistance in the first sets of appeal proceedings in respect of their cases, contrary to Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, which reads as follows in the relevant part:
“1. In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
...
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require[.]”
A. Admissibility
14. The Government submitted that an examination of the complaints of Ms Ichetovkina and Mr Dubrovskiy (applications nos. 12584/05 and 45690/05) would be premature because on 18 November 2009 and 26 January 2010, respectively, the prosecutor had requested the domestic courts to reopen the proceedings in respect of their cases and the matter was being resolved at the domestic level. In their submissions the Government also referred to the Court’s case-law on loss of victim status; they may be understood as suggesting that Ms Ichetovkina and Mr Dubrovskiy ceased to be victims of the alleged violation after the request to reopen the criminal proceedings had been brought. Finally, the Government also stated that they would inform the Court about the outcome of the domestic proceedings in the cases of Ms Ichetovkina and Mr Dubrovskiy.
15. No further information was made available to the Court about the status or the outcome of these proceedings when the Court began its examination of these two applications.
16. The Government further submitted that after the proceedings in respect of the cases of Mr Kosteletskiy, Mr Novoseletskiy, Mr Chernenko, and Mr Globinko (applications nos. 45074/05, 11343/06, 51264/07 and 59378/08) had been reopened, they had been represented by a lawyer during the re-examination of their case on appeal and that they had therefore lost their victim status.
17. All six applicants disagreed with the arguments of the Government and maintained that they had not lost their victim status.
18. In this regard, the Court reiterates that, in case of reopening of the domestic proceedings in the context of Russian cases, the assessment of victim status largely depends on the legal characterisation of a second set of proceedings as a separate case or, alternatively, as part of the same criminal case. The Court thus prefers to join the Government’s objection concerning victim status to the merits of the case and to examine them together (see Sakhnovskiy, cited above, § 47).
19. The Court also finds that the complaint regarding the absence of a lawyer from the first sets of appeal proceedings brought by each of the six applicants is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
20. The Court observes that the Russian authorities sought to reopen or reopened the domestic proceedings in respect of the cases of the applicants after their applications had been communicated to the Government by the Court.
21. In the leading Russian case concerning the absence of counsel from an appeal hearing, Sakhnovskiy (cited above, §§ 67, 82-83), the Court held as follows:
“67. It is a well-established principle of the Court’s case-law that an applicant may lose his victim status if two conditions are met: first, the authorities must have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention and, second, they must have afforded redress for it. Only when these conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application ...
82. ... Domestic proceedings are frequently reopened at the instigation of the Russian authorities when they learn that the case has been admitted for examination in Strasbourg. Sometimes it benefits the applicant, in which case the reopening serves a useful purpose. However, given the ease with which the Government uses this procedure, there is also a risk of abuse. If the Court were to accept unconditionally that the mere fact of reopening the proceedings was to have the automatic effect of removing the applicant’s victim status, the respondent State would be capable of thwarting the examination of any pending case by having repeated recourse to supervisory-review proceedings, rather than correcting the past violations by giving the applicant a fair trial ...”
83. The Court considers that the reopening of proceedings by itself may not automatically be regarded as sufficient redress capable of depriving the applicant of his victim status. To ascertain whether or not the applicant retained his victim status the Court will consider the proceedings as a whole, including the proceedings which followed the reopening ...”
1. The cases of Ms Ichetovkina and Mr Dubrovskiy (applications nos. 12584/05 and 45690/05)
22. The Court notes that no information was provided to the Court as to whether or not fresh examinations took place in the cases of Ms Ichetovkina and Mr Dubrovskiy and if so, what the outcome of those proceedings was (see paragraphs 14-15 above). Therefore, in the light of the case of Sakhnovskiy (cited above, § 83) and in the absence of any additional information as to the status of the proceedings, the Court cannot regard the request to reopen the proceedings in respect of the cases of Ms Ichetovkina and Mr Dubrovskiy as constituting sufficient redress in and of itself and concludes that these two applicants did not lose their victim status.
23. The Court further notes that after the Government submitted that the prosecutor had sought to reopen the proceedings, they have not made any further observations on the merits (or in respect of the documents submitted) in the cases of Ms Ichetovkina and Mr Dubrovskiy. Therefore, given the specific circumstances of the cases of Ms Ichetovkina and Mr Dubrovskiy and the fact that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading the Court to reach a different conclusion in the present case, and in the light of the Court’s well‑established case-law concerning the lack of effective legal assistance in appeal proceedings in Russia (see paragraph 31 below), the Court finds that the criminal proceedings against Ms Ichetovkina and Mr Dubrovskiy were not fair because Ms Ichetovkina and Mr Dubrovskiy were not represented by a lawyer at the appeal proceedings in respect of their cases, held on 28 January 2005 and 12 May 2005, respectively (see paragraph 6 above). The Government’s objection is therefore dismissed.
24. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in respect of Ms Ichetovkina and Mr Dubrovskiy.
2. The cases of Mr Kosteletskiy, Mr Novoseletskiy, Mr Chernenko, and Mr Globinko (applications nos. 45074/05, 11343/06, 51264/07 and 59378/08)
25. As regards the cases of the other four applicants, the Court notes that the domestic courts re-examined them and expressly acknowledged that the applicants’ right to legal assistance in the first appeal proceedings in respect of their cases had been breached (see paragraph 9 above). Therefore, in line with the principles established in the case of Sakhnovskiy (see paragraph 21 above), the Court will turn to examine whether the domestic courts afforded redress to the applicants. In particular, the Court will consider whether the second set of the appeal proceedings in respect of the applicants’ cases was compatible with the requirements of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1.
(a) The cases of Mr Novoseletskiy and Mr Chernenko (applications nos. 11343/06 and 51264/07)
26. The Government submitted that “[Mr] Novoseletskiy and his counsel ... took part in the fresh examination of the criminal case in the cassation instance court. The sentence ... was amended with respect to classification of the offence and the punishment imposed on ... [Mr] Novoseletskiy, which improved his situation.” The Government did not provide any additional information or details about the manner in which the domestic courts examined the case of Mr Novoseletskiy.
27. In the case of Mr Chernenko, the Government submitted that under the existing rules, “the personnel leaves the room where the accused communicates with his lawyer via video link”. They also submitted that Mr Chernenko’s lawyer had reviewed the files pertaining to his case on three different occasions prior to the proceedings but had not filed a statement of appeal and that Mr Chernenko had not lodged any requests for a recess or additional time in which to communicate with his lawyer.
28. Mr Novoseletskiy submitted that he had briefly communicated with his lawyer via video link immediately before the proceedings but that he had not had time to discuss their line of defence; he stated that this had “reduced the lawyer’s appearance at the appeal proceedings to a mere formality”.
29. Mr Chernenko submitted that he was not allowed to meet with his lawyer in advance of the second set the appeal proceedings to discuss their line of defence. Furthermore, his lawyer could not have effectively reviewed eleven case files in the time that had been allocated to her and that she had not filed a statement of appeal on his behalf. He further submitted that his co-defendant, the prosecutor and the prison guard had been present during his meeting with the lawyer via video link immediately before the appeal proceedings and that the quality of the video connection during the appeal proceedings had been poor as he had not been able to hear what the judge and prosecutor were saying.
30. Having examined the parties’ submissions and the materials in the case file, the Court is not persuaded that the time allotted to both applicants for communication with their lawyers was sufficient and that the arrangements in place secured the confidentiality of such communication. The Court concludes that the second set of proceedings failed to remedy the defects of the earlier proceedings as it appears from the applicants’ submission that both of them were not able to enjoy effective legal assistance. Accordingly, the Court considers that Mr Novoseletskiy and Mr Chernenko did not lose their victim status. The Government’s objection is therefore dismissed.
31. The Court further notes that the cases of Mr Novoseletskiy and Mr Chernenko are virtually identical to other Russian cases concerning a lack of effective legal assistance in appeal proceedings in respect of criminal cases; in such cases the Court has consistently found violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (see Sakhnovskiy, cited above, §§ 99-109; Shumikhin, cited above, §§ 22-23; Volkov and Adamskiy, cited above, §§ 56-61; Eduard Rozhkov, cited above, §§ 21-26; and Nefedov, cited above, §§ 41-48). Having regard to its well‑established case-law on the subject, the Court finds no reason to depart from its earlier findings on the matter and holds that taken as a whole, the criminal proceedings against Mr Novoseletskiy and Mr Chernenko were incompatible with the notion of a fair trial.
32. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c), taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, with regard to Mr Novoseletskiy and Mr Chernenko.
(b) The cases of Mr Kosteletskiy and Mr Globinko (applications nos. 45074/05 and 59378/08)
33. Regarding the case of Mr Kosteletskiy, the Government submitted that he had communicated with his lawyer via video link twice – a month in advance of the second appeal proceedings and immediately before the start of it – and that the time allowed for them to communicate with one another had not been restricted. Mr Kosteletskiy had not lodged any requests for a personal meeting with a lawyer after they had last communicated. Neither had he complained about the quality of the video conference call during the appeal proceedings. The Government provided a transcript of the appeal proceedings of Mr Kosteletskiy’s case.
34. In the case of Mr Globinko, the Government submitted that “the applicant and his defence counsel took part in the proceedings, expressed their position and supported their cassation complaints. [Under its judgment of 3 April 2013 the Supreme Court of Russia reduced] the applicant’s sentence to fourteen years and six months of imprisonment.”
35. Mr Kosteletskiy stated that the quality of the video link on the day of the proceedings had been poor, that he had not been able to hear the prosecutor, and that the appeal court had either ignored his complaints or ordered him to lodge his requests later. Furthermore, Mr Kosteletskiy claimed that his communication with the lawyer “[could] not be regarded as confidential, for he [had not been able to be] sure that there had been no one else in the courtroom during their communication.”
36. Mr Globinko filed observations but they contained no relevant comments regarding the second set of appeal proceedings in respect of his case.
37. The Court notes Mr Kosteletskiy’s comments about the quality of the video link and his complaints to the appeal court about it. However, the Court also observes that the transcript of the appeal proceedings submitted by the Government reflects that Mr Kosteletskiy actively participated in the proceedings via video link, asked the court to admit a document as evidence, stated his position regarding the case and answered questions from the presiding judge. It does not transpire from the transcript that Mr Kosteletskiy lodged any complaints about technical problems during the proceedings and Mr Kosteletskiy himself does not dispute the accuracy or integrity of the transcript in his observations. Therefore, it appears from the materials in the case file that the video transmission was of satisfactory quality; it did not undermine the applicant’s position vis-à-vis prosecution and did not have an adverse impact on the fairness of the proceedings. As regards the alleged lack of confidentiality of communication between Mr Kosteletskiy and his lawyer, the Court notes that unlike for example, Mr Chernenko (see paragraph 29 above), Mr Kosteletskiy did not state that third persons had indeed been present in the court room during the second appeal proceedings in respect of his case – he had only speculated, without providing any specific details, that there may have been others. Moreover, as can be seen from the parties’ submissions, following two meetings with his lawyer via video link, Mr Kosteletskiy did not lodge any complaints about any lack of confidentiality and did not request a meeting with his lawyer in person, which the Court considers as being strongly indicative of Mr Kosteletskiy’s overall satisfaction with their communication.
38. Accordingly, having regard to the above, the Court considers that the second set of the appeal proceedings in respect of Mr Kosteletskiy’s case was compatible with the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention and it can be said that, in addition to acknowledging a violation (see paragraph 9 above), the authorities have provided him with sufficient redress for the alleged breach of the Convention in the earlier proceedings.
39. The Court therefore accepts the Government’s objection that Mr Kosteletskiy has lost his victim status and finds that there has been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in his case.
40. As regards Mr Globinko, the Court observes that while the Government submitted at least some information regarding the second set of appeal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s case (see paragraph 34 above), the applicant provided no explanation or comments on the issue (see paragraph 36 above).
41. Accordingly, in the absence of the applicant’s arguments to the contrary, the Court proceeds to examine Mr Globinko’s application on the basis of the materials that are currently in his case file. It notes that nothing in the case-file suggests that the new appeal proceedings were inadequate. It therefore accepts the Government’s submissions that the applicant and his defence counsel were able to participate effectively in the appeal proceeding after the reopening. Accordingly, it finds that Mr Globinko has lost his victim status and it holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in his case.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 (Mr DUBROVSKIY) AND ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 3 (b), (c) OF THE CONVENTION (Mr CHERNENKO)
42. Mr Dubrovskiy (application no. 45690/05) also complained that he had not attended the appeal proceedings in respect of his case in person and had had to participate in it via video link. Mr Chernenko (application no. 51264/07) stated that he had not been able to review the appeal statement of his co-defendant before the start of the second appeal proceedings of his case and that he had been ordered to reimburse the authorities for the legal aid fees paid to his lawyer. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b), (c) of the Convention.
43. In the case of Mr Dubrovskiy, the Government submitted only that “the applicant [had] participated in the appeal proceedings of his case via video link.” In the case of Mr Chernenko, the Government submitted that a copy of the co-defendant’s statement of appeal had been sent to the correctional facility in which the applicant was imprisoned. Moreover, the applicant’s lawyer had reviewed the criminal case files on three occasions. The Government further stated that the domestic court had waived the legal costs incurred by Mr Chernenko in the course of the proceedings.
44. The Court considers that these complaints are linked to the one examined above in respect of Mr Dubrovskiy and Mr Chernenko and concern the proceedings which the Court has found to have been unfair. It accordingly declares them admissible.
45. However, having regard to the findings relating to Article 6 § 1 (see paragraphs 23-24 and 30-31 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately whether, in this case, there has been a violation under Article 6 §§ 1 as regards Mr Dubrovskiy and under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b), (c) of the Convention as regards Mr Chernenko.
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
46. Lastly, the applicants raised additional complaints with reference to various Articles of the Convention and its Protocols. The Court has examined these complaints as submitted by the applicants. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, it finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
47. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“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.”
A. Damage
1. Pecuniary damage
48. In respect of pecuniary damage, Mr Novoseletskiy (application no. 11343/06) claimed 7,000 euros (EUR).
49. The Government contested this claim as unsubstantiated.
50. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
2. Non-pecuniary damage
51. The following applicants claimed the below amounts in respect of non‑pecuniary damage:
Ms Ichetovkina (application no. 12584/05) – EUR 100,000;
Mr Novoseletskiy (application no. 11343/06) – EUR 10,000;
Mr Chernenko (application no. 51264/07) – EUR 30,000.
52. The Government contested those claims. They considered that the finding of a violation, if any, would constitute sufficient just satisfaction for the applicants.
53. The Court considers that in the present case an award of just satisfaction must take account of the fact that the applicants did not have a fair trial because they did not enjoy effective legal assistance in the various appeal proceedings in respect of their cases. The Court thus decides that the applicants sustained non‑pecuniary damage which would not be adequately compensated by the finding of a violation alone. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it therefore awards EUR 1,500 each to Ms Ichetovkina, Mr Novoseletskiy and Mr Chernenko under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
54. Mr Chernenko (application no. 51264/07) claimed 2,000 Russian roubles ((RUB) – about EUR 30) in legal costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the domestic courts and the Court.
55. The Government replied that the applicants had not submitted any proof of the costs and expenses that they had incurred.
56. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court rejects Mr Chernenko’s claim for costs and expenses in its entirety.
C. Default interest
57. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Joins to the merits the Government’s objections concerning the applicants’ victim status;
3. Declares admissible the complaints concerning the absence of a lawyer from the appeal proceedings in each of the applicants’ criminal cases, Mr Dubrovskiy’s complaint regarding his having to participate in the proceedings via video link, and Mr Chernenko’s complaint regarding the review of the case material and recovery of legal fees, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
4. Holds that Ms Ichetovkina, Mr Dubrovskiy, Mr Novoseletskiy and Mr Chernenko have the status of “victim” for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention in respect of their original complaints regarding the absence of lawyer from the first set of the appeal proceedings and rejects the Government’s objection in this respect;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention regarding lack of legal assistance in respect of Ms Ichetovkina, Mr Dubrovskiy, Mr Novoseletskiy and Mr Chernenko;
6. Holds that Mr Kosteletskiy and Mr Globinko have lost the status of “victim” for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention and that there has been no violation in respect of their complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention;
7. Holds that there is no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding participation via video link in respect of Mr Dubrovskiy and the complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b), (c) of the Convention regarding review of case materials and recovery of legal fees in respect of Mr Chernenko;
8. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay Ms Ichetovkina, Mr Novoseletskiy and Mr Chernenko, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros) each, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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;
9. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 July 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş AracıHelena Jäderblom
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Dates of introduction and communication
Applicant’s name,
date of birth and place of residence
Represented by
First appeal hearing
Supervisory review proceedings
Second appeal hearing
1.
12584/05
15/02/2005
11/09/2009
Natalya Aleksandrovna ICHETOVKINA
04/02/1984
Arkhangelsk
Mikhail Vladimirovich SITILIN
Arkhangeslk Regional Court,
28 January 2005
request for supervisory review by the prosecutor,
18 November 2009
No information provided
2.
45074/05
05/11/2005
15/05/2009
Petr Petrovich KOSTELETSKIY
01/07/1957
Murmashi (Murmansk region)
Oksana Vladimirovna PREOBRAZHENSKAYA
Pskov Regional Court,
11 May 2005
Pskov Regional Court,
26 February 2010
Pskov Regional Court,
31 March 2010
3.
45690/05
31/10/2005
03/11/2009
Dmitriy Nikolayevich DUBROVSKIY
05/08/1983
Tula
Supreme Court of Russia
12 May 2005
request for supervisory review by the prosecutor,
26 January 2010
No information provided
4.
11343/06
27/02/2006
30/04/2010
Andrey Aleksandrovich NOVOSELETSKIY
10/08/1973
Krasnodar
Marina ZAPUNNAYA
Krasnodar Regional Court,
28 September 2005
Supreme Court of Russia,
21 September 2010
Krasnodar Regional Court,
24 November 2010
5.
51264/07
24/09/2007
03/11/2009
Konstantin Gennadyevich CHERNENKO
12/07/1978
Kharp (Yamalo-Nenetskiy region)
Supreme Court of Russia,
5 April 2007
Supreme Court of Russia,
27 October 2010
Supreme Court of Russia,
5 May 2011
6.
59378/08
15/10/2008
30/08/2012
Viktor Yevgenyevich GLOBINKO
25/12/1984
Novosibirsk
Supreme Court of Russia,
26 August 2008
Supreme Court of Russia,
13 February 2013
Supreme Court of Russia,
3 April 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy