""

" (46998/08) - ; , "


no. 46998/08 10 2008 . ( ) (Application no. 46998/08 Valentina Nikolayevna MIKHAYLOVA against Russia lodged on 10 September 2008 (STATEMENT OF FACTS)

 

30.10.2012

 

   FIRST SECTION

   Application no. 46998/08
   Valentina Nikolayevna MIKHAYLOVA
   against Russia
   lodged on 10 September 2008

   STATEMENT OF FACTS

   The  applicant,  Ms  Valentina  Nikolayevna  Mikhaylova,  is a Russian
   national,  who  was  born  in  1949 and lives in St Petersburg. She is
   represented  before  the Court by Mr A. Burkov, a lawyer practising in
   Yekaterinburg.

   A.  The circumstances of the case

   The  facts  of  the  case,  as  submitted  by  the  applicant,  may be
   summarised as follows.

   In  November  2007  the  applicant  took part in a march. She was then
   accused of disobeying the police order to end up this march, which was
   considered to be a non-authorised public gathering.

   The   applicant  was  charged  under  Article  19.3  of  the  Code  of
   Administrative Offences (CAO), which punishes (by a fine or detention)
   disobedience  to  a lawful order by a public official. The applicant's
   case was set to be examined by a peace justice.

   Referring  to  the Court's case-law under Article 6 of the Convention,
   the  applicant  sought free legal assistance in these proceedings. The
   peace justice dismissed this request as not prescribed by law.

   By  a  judgment  of 19 December 2007 the applicant was found guilty of
   the  administrative  offence  and  sentenced  to a fine of 500 Russian
   roubles (RUB, apprx. 14 euros).

   On the same date, the applicant was also found guilty of breaching the
   requirements  of the Public Gatherings Act, which is an administrative
   offence  under  Article  20.2 of the CAO. The applicant was ordered to
   pay a fine of RUB 500.

   The  applicant  appealed and sought free legal assistance. On 17 March
   2008  the  Dzerzhinksiy  District  Court  of  St Petersburg upheld the
   judgments  of  the peace justice. The appeal court stated that the CAO
   did not authorise or require appointment of counsel at public expense.

   The applicant sought further review of the above court decisions. By a
   letter  of 25 September 2008 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court
   of  Russia  dismissed  her complaint concerning the case under Article
   20.2  of  the  CAO,  stating  that  the  CAO  did  not  provide  for a
   possibility   of  free  legal  assistance  in  administrative  offence
   proceedings.

   B.  Relevant domestic law

   The   offence   under  Article  19.3  of  the  CAO  is  punishable  by
   administrative detention; the offence under Article 20.2 of the CAO is
   punishable by a fine.

   The  person's  omission  to pay the fine within a time-limit entails a
   monetary  penalty  or  administrative  detention  up  to  fifteen days
   (Article 20.25 of the CAO).

   Article  20.25  constituted  a  separate  administrative  offence. The
   related case should be opened and brought before a court without delay
   (Ruling  of  the  Presidium  of the Supreme Court of Russia of 7 March
   2007, point 11).

   COMPLAINTS

   The  applicant  complains  under Article 6 of the Convention about the
   refusal  of  free  legal  assistance  in  the  administrative  offence
   proceedings  and  the  courts' failure to examine this issue under the
   Convention.

   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

   1.  Does the present case fall within the scope of Article 35 S: 3 (b)
   of  the  Convention?  In  particular,  did  the  applicant  suffer any
   "significant disadvantage"?

   2.  (a)  Was  Article  6  of the Convention applicable to the domestic
   proceedings in the present case? Was it applicable, under its criminal
   or  civil  limb,  to  the  case  under  Article  19.3  of  the Code of
   Administrative  Offences (CAO)? As regards the case under Article 20.2
   of the CAO:

   -  Was  Article  6  of  the Convention applicable under its civil limb
   (see,  for  comparison,  Lutz  v. Germany, 25 August 1987, S:S: 51-57,
   Series A  no.  123;  Malige  v. France, 23 September 1998, S:S: 31-40,
   Reports  of  Judgments  and Decisions 1998-VII; Schmautzer v. Austria,
   23 October 1995, S:S: 26-28, Series A no. 328-A; and Nilsson v. Sweden
   (dec.), no. 73661/01, 13 December 2005)?

   -  Does  it  matter that non-payment of a fine imposed in a case under
   Article  20.2  may entail conviction and detention under Article 20.25
   (see,  for  comparison,  Weber v. Switzerland, no. 11034/84, S: 34, 22
   May 1990; see Ravnsborg v. Sweden, no. 14220/88, S: 35, 23 March 1994;
   and Schmautzer v. Austria, no. 15523/89, S: 28, 23 October 1995)?

   (b)  If  Article 6 of the Convention was applicable, was the applicant
   afforded  an adequate opportunity to defend herself in person? Was she
   afforded  an  opportunity  to  receive  legal assistance before and/or
   during  the  trial  and/or on appeal before the District Court? Having
   regard  to  various relevant factors (for instance, the seriousness of
   the  offences,  the severity of the possible sentences, the complexity
   of  the  cases  and  the  personal  situation of the accused), did the
   interests of justice require that legal assistance be provided free of
   charge?  If  yes, was there a violation of Article 6 of the Convention
   (cf. Pakelli v. Germany, 25 April 1983, S: 31, Series A no. 64; Benham
   v.  the  United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, S: 61, Reports of Judgments and
   Decisions  1996-III), and Gutfreund v. France (dec.), no. 45681/99, 25
   April 2002)?

   2 MIKHAYLOVA v. RUSSIA - STATEMENT OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS

   MIKHAYLOVA v. RUSSIA - STATEMENT OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS 3


, , :

.      


:

  Diaspora*

:

:

:

(? ? ? OpenID?)

e-mail ( , - ):

:

( -):

        

 

 

15.05.2015. "" .