THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 39797/07
Aleksandr Nikolayevich CHERNIGIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 22 May 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 August 2007,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Nikolayevich Chernigin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1988 and lives in Kostroma. He was represented before the Court by Ms O.V. Preobrazhenskaya, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented 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 applicant alleged that the criminal proceedings which resulted in his conviction were unfair on account of the use of his confession statement given without a lawyer.
4. The above complaint was communicated to the Government on 3 November 2016, and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.
5. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6. On 12 July 2006 the applicant was arrested by the police at his home on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence (premeditated murder) and taken to the Zavolzhskiy police department, Kostroma.
7. Later on the same day the applicant made a confession statement. According to the Government, the applicant was informed prior to that statement of his right not to incriminate oneself provided by Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
8. After that statement, a record of the applicant’s arrest was drawn up and he was provided access to a State-appointed lawyer. The applicant questioned as a suspect two times on the same day reiterated his previous confession in the presence of the State-appointed lawyer.
9. On 19 July 2006 the applicant questioned as an accused in the presence of the same State-appointed lawyer again reiterated his previous confession.
10. From 26 July 2006 the applicant was represented by a lawyer of his own choosing.
11. On 21 December 2006 the applicant questioned as an accused in the presence of the lawyer of his own choosing retracted the previous confession.
12. In the course of the trial the applicant requested his confession statement to be excluded from the body of admissible evidence, asserting that it had been given as a result of his ill-treatment and in the absence of a lawyer. The trial court rejected the request.
13. On 19 February 2007 the Dmitrovskiy District Court of Kostroma refused to declare the applicant’s confession statement inadmissible and convicted him as charged.
14. On 5 April 2007 the Kostroma Regional Court endorsed the trial court’s findings on appeal.
15. On 6 August 2007 the applicant wrote to the Court complaining, inter alia, about the use of his initial confession made in the absence of a lawyer to secure his conviction. He also asked the Court to provide him with an application form.
16. By letter of 12 September 2007, the Court acknowledged receipt of the letter to the applicant’s representative and invited him to submit a duly filled in application form as soon as possible and in any event not later than within six months from the date of the present letter.
17. The applicant signed the application form on 30 January 2008, which was subsequently received by the Court.
COMPLAINT
18. The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention that his rights of defence in criminal proceedings were violated, as his initial confession – which formed the basis of his criminal conviction – was obtained in breach of his right to a lawyer.
THE LAW
19. The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings which resulted in his conviction had been unfair on account of the use of his self‑incriminating statements he made on 12 July 2006 after he had been apprehended by police. He referred to Article 6 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“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 ...”
20. First, the Government expressed doubts on whether the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit provided by the Convention. They noted in this respect that his first letter was sent to the Court on 6 August 2007 whereas the completed application form was signed by him only on 30 January 2008. They further clarified that since they do not have a copy of the Court’s letter inviting the applicant to provide a completed application form, they could not ascertain that he complied with that time-limit set in that letter to that effect.
21. Second, the Government submitted that the applicant’s confession was made voluntarily and after he had been informed of his right not to incriminate oneself. They further indicated that his conviction was based on abundant other evidence, which had not been called into question by the applicant. Thus, the Government asserted that even in the absence of the applicant’s confession statement the national courts would have convicted him on the basis of other available evidence.
22. The applicant assisted by a lawyer maintained, first, that the date of his preliminary letter to the Court of 6 August 2007 be taken as a date of introduction of his complaint, as he had raised in it the issue complained of and later introduced the filled in application form within a time-limit set by the Court. Second, the applicant maintained that he had not been informed of his right to legal assistance before making his confession statement and that his confession statement made in the absence of a lawyer secured his conviction.
23. As to the Government’s first argument, the Court notes that in response to his first correspondence the applicant was invited on 12 September 2007 to submit within six months a completed application form. He signed such form on 30 January 2008, that is within the deadline set by the Court (see Yartsev v. Russia (dec.), no. 13776/11, § 21, 26 March 2013, and Kemevuako v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65938/09, § 19, 1 June 2010). The Court therefore finds that the application was introduced within six months provided by the Convention.
24. As to the applicant’s argument that his confession statement made in the absence of a lawyer secured his conviction, the Court notes that it has held on many occasions that the requirements of Article 6 § 3 of the Convention are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, § 94, 2 November 2010, and Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, § 100, ECHR 2015). The right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 is an unqualified right. However, what constitutes a fair trial cannot be the subject of a single unvarying rule but must depend on the circumstances of the particular case. The Court’s primary concern under Article 6 § 1 is to evaluate the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings (see Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 250, ECHR 2016 with further references).
25. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the Government asserted that prior to his confession the applicant was informed about his right not to incriminate oneself and that the decisions of the national courts were based on abundant other evidence which was in any event sufficient for convicting him. The applicant submitted no comments in response to these statements except for noting that he had given confession statements under duress and in the absence of a lawyer. In the absence of any explanations from the applicant in particular on how the alleged initial restriction of his defence rights irretrievably prejudiced the overall fairness of the proceedings in his case, the Court considers that the applicant has failed to provide the necessary substantiation for his allegation (see Loboda v. Ukraine, no. 8865/06, § 43, 17 November 2016). Given that finding, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine any other arguments by the parties and concludes that it is appropriate to dismiss the present complaint as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 14 June 2018.
Fatoş AracıAlena Poláčková
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy