Information Note on the Court’s case-law 51
March 2003
Posokhov v. Russia - 63486/00
Judgment 4.3.2003 [Section II]
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Tribunal established by law
Non-compliance with rules on participation of lay judges in criminal trials: violation
Facts: The applicant was convicted by a District Court in May 2000 of being an accessory to the avoidance of customs duties and of abuse of office. He lodged an appeal, in which he claimed that the two lay judges had sat in other trials, although the law allowed lay judges to be called only once a year for a maximum period of fourteen days or for the duration of a particular case. The appeal was dismissed in August 2000 and an application for supervisory review, in which the applicant further claimed that the lay judges had not been chosen lot, as required by the law, was refused. Following communication of the application to the Government, the applicant’s conviction was partly quashed on an application for supervisory review by the President of the Regional Court. In July 2001 the District Court again found the applicant guilty but dispensed him from serving his sentence, as the case was time-barred. His appeal was dismissed. However, on a further application for supervisory review, the Regional Court quashed these decisions on the ground that the case was time-barred. The District Authority subsequently informed the applicant that the list of lay judges had been adopted by the District Legislature in February 2000and confirmed by the Regional Legislature in June 2000.
Law: The applicant’s victim status – While the applicant’s criminal record had been erased following the quashing of his conviction, no decision of the domestic courts since the dismissal of the applicant’s first appeal in August 2000 had dealt with the issue of the lay judges or contained any acknowledgment of a violation. The applicant could therefore claim to be a victim.
Article 6 § 1 – Apart from the apparent failure to observe the requirements regarding the drawing of lots and two weeks’ service a year, the District Authority had confirmed that it had no list of lay judges appointed before February 2000 and it had thus failed to present any legal grounds for the participation of the lay judges in the applicant’s trial, bearing in mind that the list adopted in February 2000 had only taken effect the following June. These circumstances, cumulatively, did not permit the conclusion that the District Court was a “tribunal established by law” when it heard the applicant’s case.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 500 € in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy