The opposition leader Alexei Navalny
The ECtHR found violations in the “reality” Kirovlesa “and awarded oppositionist Alexey Navalny and businessman Peter Ofitserova compensation in the amount of € 8 thousand. Russia also has to compensate the applicants legal costs
violations of the Convention
The ECtHR found that, during the consideration of the “case” Kirovlesa “in 2013 right Ofitserova Navalny and to a fair trial had been violated (Article 6 of the European Convention on human rights). The judgment in the morning on February 23 was published on the official website of the court.
The Strasbourg court found that the Leninsky district court Kirov did not have to consider separately the case against Navalny and Ofitserova and against the former head of KOGUP “Kirovles” Vyacheslav Opaleva and had a critical attitude to the testimony Opaleva.
The verdict against Opaleva entered into force in December 2012. He made a pre-trial agreement, so the consideration of his case took place without examining the evidence, and received four years probation under “Misappropriation or embezzlement committed by an organized group or on a large scale” (p.4 st.160 Criminal Code). The court’s decision stated that Navalny forced “Kirovles” obviously disadvantageous to sign a contract with Vyatka Timber Company Ofitserova: WFC acquired products “Kirovlesa” and was looking for a buyer; the court concluded that “Kirovles” could increase its revenues if working with contractors directly, without an intermediary. Later testimony Opaleva formed the basis of the case against Navalny and Ofitserova. Despite the objections of the lawyers, the court found the words Opaleva credible
The decision of the ECHR states that was broken, and Article 7 of the Convention, which guarantees the punishment without law:. To condemn and Ofitserova Navalny, the Russian authorities considerably went beyond the usual interpretation of the legislation indicated ECHR judges.
The Strasbourg court did not agree with the applicants that the Russian authorities with the help of the court on the “case” Kirovlesa “sought not to restore justice and sought to prevent the social and political Navalny activity. Here in Strasbourg indicated that Russian courts would have to pay attention to the relationship between anti-corruption publications Navalny and the desire of the Investigative Committee to charge him.
“It was obvious that the first applicant (Bulk -. RBC) is not limited to publications, which will attract the attention only of specialized publications, but will strive to become a politician of the federal scale, which is able to convey their views to a much broader audience. With the entry into force of a conviction the applicant had lost the opportunity to stand for election, and his freedom of movement was limited, “- noted in the decision. The document emphasizes that the investigation “case” Kirovlesa “was resumed on the direct orders of the head of the TFR Alexander Bastrykin, who found Navalny residence and business in the Czech Republic.
As a result, the ECtHR found that the bulk and Ofitserova tried for acts that can not be distinguished from the ordinary course of business, and awarded the applicants for € 8 thousand. for non-pecuniary damage. The court also ruled that Russia must pay Navalny little more than € 48 thousand, and Ofitserova -. Almost € 23 thousand for the reimbursement of costs
The basis for the review <.. / strong>
Navalny’s lawyer Olga Mikhailova believes that the ECHR decision should become the basis for revision of the judgment of the case: the decision of the Strasbourg court can be regarded as a newly discovered fact (st.413 Criminal Procedure Code). As Mikhailov RBC explained, is now the Supreme Court to initiate the proceedings and to solve the problem: change the verdict, reverse and remand the case for reconsideration, or leave it in place
The very Bulk hopes that Russia will fulfill the decision of the ECHR, although not. It rules out that the authorities may resort to “procedural delays” to actually ignore the ruling. “To achieve non-enforcement by the Constitutional Court – is tantamount to failure to achieve all other cases where a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, and such decisions most. Here it is very easy to get out of the PACE “- said RBC Navalny. He also noted that the decision of the authorities does not matter. “The Kremlin is important guarantee my non-participation in the elections, and that they give a verdict on the” case “Yves Rocher” – said the politician
«In theory, the Supreme Court may refer the case for review, but this happens very rarely”. – said the deputy director of the RBC Center for international protection Valentin Moiseyev. He noted that he was not aware of any case that a Russian court reviewed the criminal case after the decision of Strasbourg.
In 2013, the Presidium of the Supreme Court refused to cancel or send for retrial case of ex-security chief NK “Yukos “Alexei Pichugin, although the ECtHR found that his process was also violated the right to a fair trial.
Russia’s position
The Ministry of Justice is not able to respond promptly to the RBC inquiry as to whether the Russian authorities to fulfill the ECHR decision on the complaint Navalny and Ofitserova.
In December 2015, President Vladimir Putin signed a law allowing the COP to ignore the decisions of international courts if they contradict the Constitution of Russia. As explained in connection with the CC judge Sergey Mavrin, international law still takes precedence over national laws. “But the Constitution does not apply to ordinary law: this is a special legal act, being on top of our legal system”, – he said
In February, the Constitutional Court received the first call of the Ministry of Justice about the possibility of non-execution of the European Court decisions. human Rights. The request concerns a court decision on the case “Anchugov and smooth against Russia” on July 4, 2013. In fact we are talking about an unconditional ban prisoners to vote in elections regardless of the severity of the crime. The Strasbourg court ruled that this provision is contrary to the European Convention.
Facts
In July 2013, the Leninsky District Court of Kirov recognized Navalny and Ofitserova guilty of fraud on a large scale. According to investigators, they illegally received KOGUP “Kirovles” 10 thousand. Cubic meters. m timber worth 16 million rubles. Ofitserova Company – LLC “Vyatka Timber Company.” – and then sold
Bulk and officers denied guilt and insisted that for the forest company listed FeLV “Kirovlesu” 15.5 million rubles. and found buyers for these products, which could not implement their own “Kirovles.” Initially, the court sentenced them in the form of 5 and 4 years in prison, respectively. Autumn on appeal Kirov regional court changed the actual sentence of a conditional. Bulk custody and officers were one day: immediately after the verdict of the district court prosecutor’s office appealed the application to them of the arrest until the entry into force of the decision
October 23, 2015 Nikulinskiy Court granted the petition “Kirovlesa” for compensation.. Shall be obliged to Navalny, Ofitserova and Opaleva pay nearly 16.2 million rubles. In 2013, the company’s representatives have refused the civil suit. According to lawyer Vadim Navalny Kobzev actually plaintiffs demanded double payment for the products, as Vyatka Timber Company has already paid the sum of all timber 14.8 million rubles., Which is confirmed not only documents, but also the verdict of the Leninsky district court of Kirov. The decision of the court Nikulinskiy Navalny and officers appealed to the Moscow City Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment