Communicated on 12 May 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 45424/11
Sergey Nikolayevich GNETNEV
against Russia
lodged on 28 May 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sergey Nikolayevich Gnetnev, is a Russian national who was born in 1982 and is detained in the town of Angarsk. He is represented before the Court by Mr I. Afonin, a lawyer practising in the town of Bratsk.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 13 November 2010 the applicant, together with five co-defendants, was convicted by the Irkutsk Regional Court of aggravated kidnapping (Article 126 § 2 (a), (c) and (d) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and robbery (Article 162 § 2 of the Criminal Code). At the same time, the Regional Court dismissed charges of banditry (Article 209 § 1 of the Criminal Code) and arms trafficking (Article 222 § 3 of the Criminal Code) and discounted several aggravating circumstances in respect of the kidnapping and robbery charges (Articles 126 and 162 of the Criminal Code).
In addition, the trial court reclassified an initial charge of extortion (Article 163 § 3 (a) of the Criminal Code) imputed to the applicant by the prosecution to that of assisting arbitrary actions (Article 330 § 2 with reference to Article 33 § 5 of the Criminal Code) and then convicted him of that crime.
The applicant complained that he had only become aware of the above‑mentioned re-classification when the trial judge had read out the judgment.
The applicant appealed, complaining, inter alia, about the legal re‑classification of the offence. On 30 March 2011 the appeal court upheld the conviction, without addressing the applicant’s re-classification complaint.
B. Relevant domestic law
Article 252 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation (“Scope of the judicial proceedings”) indicates that judicial proceedings can only be conducted in respect of a charge brought against a defendant [by the prosecution] (§ 1). Any amendment of a charge is only possible, if it does not worsen the defendant’s position and does not violate his right to defence (§ 2).
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was not informed promptly and in detail of the nature of the re‑classified accusation against him and that therefore he was not afforded adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:
a) Was the applicant informed promptly and in sufficient detail of the nature and cause of the accusation made against him under Article 330 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code, as required by Article 6 § 3 (a) of the Convention?
b) Was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy