THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 21063/08
Robert Aleksandrovich LOZOVSKIY
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 March 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 March 2008,
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 Robert Aleksandrovich Lozovskiy, is a Russian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Pyatigorsk, Stavropol Region. He was represented before the Court by Mr N.S. Gasparyan, a lawyer practising in Georgiyevsk, Stavropol Region.
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 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 16 August 2006 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence (premeditated murder of B.) and taken to the Yessentuki police department.
7. On 17 August 2006 the applicant made a confession statement. According to the Government, the applicant was informed prior to that statement of his right to remain silent 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 also provided access to a lawyer of his own choosing. The applicant questioned as a suspect in the presence of his lawyer refused to testify.
9. On 14 February 2007 the applicant requested his confession statement be excluded from the body of admissible evidence, asserting that it had been given as a result of his ill-treatment by police and in the absence of a lawyer.
10. On 15 February 2007 this request was rejected by the court.
11. On 10 July 2008 the Yessentuki Town Court of the Stavropol Region refused to declare the applicant’s confession statement inadmissible and convicted him as charged.
12. On 17 September 2008 the Stavropol Regional Court endorsed the trial courts’ findings on appeal.
COMPLAINT
13. 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
14. The applicant complained that the proceedings which resulted in his conviction had been unfair on account of the use of the self-incriminating statements he made on 17 August 2006 after he had been apprehended by the 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 ...”
15. The Government disagreed and submitted that the applicant’s confession was made voluntarily and after he had been informed of his right to remain silent. They further indicated that his conviction was based on numerous other elements, including testimonies of victims, witnesses, the results of the expert examinations and details of phone calls, 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 could have convicted him on the basis of other available evidence.
16. The applicant, assisted by a lawyer, did not wish to comment on the Government’s arguments and limited himself to presenting his just satisfaction claims.
17. As the Court has held many times, 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 many 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, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09, § 250, ECHR 2016, with further references).
18. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the Government asserted that prior to his confession statement the applicant was informed about his right to remain silent and that the decisions of the national courts were based on numerous other elements which were in any event sufficient for convicting him. No comments were submitted by the applicant in response. In the absence of his explanation 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 submitted 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 29 March 2018.
Fatoş AracıLuis López Guerra
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy