""

" (46998/08) - ; , "


( - , )

 

19.03.2013

 

                                           European Court of Human Rights

   Memorandum

   Application No. 46998/08

   Mikhailova v Russia

   The  authorities  of  the  Russian  Federation  were  informed  by the
   European  Court  of Human Rights (hereinafter - the European Court) on
   12  October 2012 about the application "Mikhailova v Russia" which was
   submitted  to  the European Court in accordance with Article 34 of the
   Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
   (hereinafter - the Convention).

   The  European  Court,  in  accordance  with  Rule  54(2)(b), asked the
   authorities  of  the Russian Federation to provide comments and answer
   the following questions:

   1.  Whether the case falls within the scope of Article 35(3)(b) of the
   Convention?   In   particular,   whether   the  applicant  suffered  a
   "significant disadvantage"?

   2.  (a)  Whether Article 6 of the Convention applies to domestic court
   proceedings in the present case?

   Whether  it  applies,  in  its criminal or in its civil aspect, to the
   court  proceedings  about  the administrative offence in accordance to
   clause  19.3  of  the  Code  of Administrative Offences of the Russian
   Federation?

   As  for  the  court  proceedings  about the administrative offences in
   accordance  to  clause  20.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences of
   the Russian Federation:

   -  Whether  article  6  of the Convention applies in its civil aspect?
   (please  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 "328-A"; Nilsson v.
   Sweden, No. 73661/01, 13 December 2005).

   -  Does  it  matter  that  the  failure  to  pay  the  fine imposed in
   accordance  with clause 20.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences of
   the  Russian  Federation can lead to prosecution and to administrative
   arrest  under  clause  20.25 of the Code of Administrative Offences of
   the Russian Federation? (please see for example, Weber v. Switzerland,
   No.  11034/84,  S: 34, 22 May 1990; Ravnsborg v. Sweden, No. 14220/88,
   S:  35,  23 March 1994; Schmautzer v. Austria, No. 15523/89, S: 28, 23
   October 1995).

   (b)  If Article 6 of the Convention applies, whether the applicant was
   provided  with a reasonable opportunity to defend herself? Whether she
   was given the opportunity to receive legal advice before and/or during
   the  hearings  in  the  Court  of  first instance and/or in the appeal
   court? Taking into account the various relevant facts of the case (for
   example,  seriousness of the offence, severity of possible punishment,
   the  complexity  of  the  case  and  the personal circumstances of the
   defendant),  whether  it  was  required in the interests of justice to
   provide  legal  aid?  If  so,  whether a violation of Article 6 of the
   Convention  took place? (please see 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, No. 45681/99, 25 April 2002).

     Applicable provisions of National law (as amended in force at the
                               relevant time)

      Federal Law No. 54-FZ dated 19 June 2004 "On meetings, rallies,
               demonstrations, marches and pickets" (extract)

   Clause 2. Main definitions

   The  following  main  definitions  are  used  for the purposes of this
   Federal Law:

   1)  Public  event - an open, peaceful, accessible to everyone, carried
   out in the form of meeting, rally, demonstration, march and picket, or
   campaign  in  various  combinations  of these forms carried out by the
   citizens  of  the  Russian Federation, the political parties and other
   public  associations  and religious organisations, including the usage
   of  vehicles.  The  purpose  of  the  public  event  is  a  freedom of
   expression  and opinions formation, also making demands on the various
   issues  of  political,  economic,  social  and  cultural  sides of the
   country and foreign policy issues;

   ...

   5)  March  - the mass walk of citizens along specified routes in order
   to attract attention to any problems;

   ...

   Clause 7. Notice about a public event

   1.  Notice  about a public event (except for meetings and pickets held
   by  one  party)  is  submitted  by  the  organiser  in  writing to the
   executive  government  body  of  the constituent entity of the Russian
   Federation  or  local government body not earlier than 15 days and not
   later  than  10 days before the public event. If the picket is carried
   by  a group of individuals a notice about the public event can be made
   no later than three days before it will take place.

   ...

    Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation (extract)

     * Clause 19 .3. Fa ilure to follow a lawful order of a militiaman, a
       military serviceman, an officer of the bodies for control over the
       traffic  of  narcotics  and psychotropic substances, an officer of
       the  bodies  for  carrying functions of control and supervision in
       the  migration  field, or an officer of the body or institution of
       the criminal punishment system
     *
       1.  Failure  to follow a lawful order or demand of a militiaman, a
       military  servicemen  or  an  official  of  the  of  the  body  or
       institution  of  the criminal punishment system in connection with
       discharge  of  their  official  duties  related  to maintenance of
       public  order  and  security, as well as impeding the discharge by
       them of their official duties -
     *    shall  entail  the  imposition of an administrative fine in the
       amount  of  from  five  hundred  rubles  to one thousand rubles or
       administrative arrest for a term of up to fifteen days. 

     * Clause  20.2  Violation of the established procedure for arranging
       or conducting a meeting, rally, demonstration, marches or picket

   ...

   2.  Violation  of  the procedure established for conducting a meeting,
   rally, demonstration, march or picket -

   shall   entail  the  imposition  of  an  administrative  fine  on  the
   organisers  thereof  in  the amount of from one thousand rubles to two
   thousand rubles; and on the participants thereof in the amount of from
   five hundred rubles to one thousand rubles.

     * Clause  20.25.  Nonpayment  of  the administrative fine or willful
       departure from the place of serving the administrative arrest

   1.  Failure to pay the administrative fine within the time limit fixed
   by this Code -

   shall  involve  the  imposition  of  the  double  amount of the unpaid
   administrative  fine or an administrative arrest for a period of up to
   fifteen days.

   ...

     * Clause  25.1.  Person  who  is  on trial in connection with a case
       concerning an administrative offence

   1.  A  person  who is on trial in connection with a case concerning an
   administrative  offence  shall  be  entitled to familiarize themselves
   with  all  the materials of the case, to give explanations, to present
   evidence,  to  make  petitions  and  objections,  to  have  the  legal
   assistance  of a defense counsel, as well as to enjoy other procedural
   rights in compliance with this Code.

   ...

                             Factual background

   On  25  November  2007 Mikhailova V.N. participated in the march which
   took  place  at Mayakovskaya Street in the City of St. Petersburg. The
   abovementioned  public  event  was  held  without  notification of the
   executive government body and in violation of the provisions of clause
   7  of  the  Federal  Law  No.54-FZ  dated  19  June 2004 "On meetings,
   rallies, demonstrations, marches and pickets".

   These  actions  were the grounds for detention of the applicant by the
   officers  of  the internal affairs body and the drawing up of a report
   about  committing  the  administrative  offence under Part 1 of Clause
   19.3  and  Part  2  of  Clause  20.2 of the Code of the Administrative
   Offences of the Russian Federation (hereinafter - the CoAO).

   On  the same day, the report about the administrative offense was sent
   to  the  Justice  of  Peace of the Judicial District Number 201 of the
   City of St. Petersburg.

   On  25  November  2007  the  Justice of Peace of the Judicial District
   Number  201  of  the  City  of  St.  Petersburg  took the cases on and
   scheduled  the  hearing  of  the  cases  on  the  same  day,  and  the
   appropriate  court  decisions  were  made by the Justice of Peace. The
   applicant  had explained to her her rights under Part 1 of Clause 25.1
   of the CoAO.

   On  25  November  2007 Mikhailova V.N. made an application to postpone
   the  hearing  of the case because it was necessary for the defender to
   participate in the case.

   The Justice of Peace allowed these applications and the hearing of the
   case was postponed until 28 November 2007.

   On  27  November  2007 Mikhailova V.N. made an application to postpone
   the  hearing  of  the  case  because  it  was necessary to receive the
   materials of the case and also a video record.

   The  Justice  of  Peace  allowed these applications and hearing of the
   cases was postponed until 5 December 2007.

   On 28 November 2007 Mikhailova V.N. made an application to be provided
   with legal aid.

   On  5  December  2007  the hearing of the cases was postponed until 19
   December 2007 because of the applicant's motion to compel witnesses to
   attend.

   The  Justice  of Peace of the Judicial District Number 201 of the City
   of  St.  Petersburg in a decision dated 19 December 2007 dismissed the
   applicant's motion to be provided legal aid. Noting, inter alia, that,
   in  her  application "Mikhailova V.N. refers to the regulations of the
   Convention  on  Human  Rights,  as well as the European Court of Human
   Rights",  the  Justice of Peace denied the motion because the rules of
   the Code of the Administrative Offence of Russian Federation says that
   the  legal  aid  is  not required to be given to a person against whom
   administrative actions are brought.

   The  Justice  of Peace of the Judicial District Number 201 of the City
   of  St.  Petersburg  in a decision dated 19 December 2007 ordered that
   the  applicant  was  guilty  in  committing the administrative offence
   under  Part  2  of  Clause  20.2  of  the  CoAO  and  sentenced her to
   punishment  in the form of an administrative fine in the amount of 500
   rubles.

   The  Justice  of Peace of the Judicial District Number 201 of the City
   of  St.  Petersburg  in  a  separate  decision  dated 19 December 2007
   ordered that the applicant was guilty in committing the administrative
   offence  under  Part 1 of Clause 19.3 of the CoAO and sentenced her to
   punishment  in the form of an administrative fine in the amount of 500
   rubles.

   On 26 December 2007 the applicant filed an appeal against the decision
   of  the  Justice  of Peace in the Court of Dzerzhinsky District of St.
   Petersburg.

   On 19 February 2008 Mikhailova V.N. made an application to be provided
   with  legal  aid and also made an application to compel the attendance
   of witnesses.

   On  19  February  2008  the  Court  of  Dzerzhinsky  District  of  St.
   Petersburg  allowed  the  application  to  compel  the  attendance  of
   witnesses.  The  applicant's  motion  to  be  provided  legal  aid was
   dismissed.

   On  11  March  2008  the applicant made an application to the Court of
   Dzerzhinsky  District  of  St. Petersburg to attach video files to the
   materials  of the case, and also made an application additional to the
   previous applications for the provision of legal aid.

   The  Court  of  Dzerzhinsky  District  of  St.  Petersburg allowed the
   application about attaching video files to the materials of the case.

   On  11  March 2008 the Court of Dzerzhinsky District of St. Petersburg
   dismissed  the applicant's additional motion to be provided with legal
   aid.   Noting,  inter  alia,  that,  in  support  of  her  application
   "Mikhailova  V.N.  refers  to  the  rules  of  international law which
   guarantee  the provision of legal aid in the administrative cases" the
   Court   of  Dzerzhinsky  District  of  St.  Petersburg  dismissed  the
   applicant's  motion  for legal aid because the CoAO, as opposed to the
   Criminal  Procedure  Code  of the Russian Federation, does not provide
   the  right for legal aid. The Court pointed out that the applicant has
   a  right to decide by herself about her participation in the hearings,
   in  accordance  with  the provisions of the Administrative Code, which
   right had been explained to her.

   In a decision dated 17 March 2008 the Court of Dzerzhinsky District of
   St.  Petersburg  upheld  the  decision  of the Justice of Peace of the
   Judicial  District  Number  201 of the City of St. Petersburg dated 19
   December 2007 in full.

                        Answer to the Question No.1

   In  accordance  with  Article 35(3)(b) of the Convention, the European
   Court  shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted
   under  the  provisions  of  Article  34  if  the  Court finds that the
   applicant  has  not  suffered  a  significant disadvantage, unless the
   principle  of  respect  of  human  rights,  as they are defined in the
   Convention  and  in the Protocols to it, requires consideration of the
   merits  of the case, and provided that examination cannot be denied on
   this  basis  of  any  case which has not been properly examined by the
   domestic court.

   In  order  to define whether the application falls within the scope of
   Article  35(3)(b)  of the Convention, the European Court should decide
   whether  the  applicant has suffered significant disadvantage, whether
   the  hearing  of the case is required because of the respect for human
   rights  and  whether  the  case  was properly examined by the national
   court.  (please see Korolev v. Russia (Decision), No. 25551/05 dated 1
   July  2010; Rinck v. France (Decision), No. 18774/09, dated 19 October
   2010). 

   Whether the applicant has suffered significant damage?

   The  European Court assesses the gravity of the violation, taking into
   account  the  subjective  perception  of  the  applicant  as  well the
   objective  circumstances  of  the particular case (please see Holub v.
   The Czech Republic (Decision), No. 24880/05, 14 December 2010). As for
   the objective circumstances of the case, then the damage should not be
   measured  in  abstract  terms,  and  even minor material damage may be
   significant in light of the specific conditions in which a person, and
   the economic situation in the country or region in which he/she lives.
   (please  see  Burov v. Moldova (Decision), No. 38875/03, S:S: 26 - 29,
   14  June  2011).  For  the  subjective basis of the case the Court has
   stated that the damage includes not only the monetary aspect, but also
   the  importance  of  the case for the applicant (please see Havelka v.
   the Czech Republic (Decision), No. 7332/10, 20 September 2011).

   Firstly,  the  authorities  of  the Russian Federation notes that this
   application  does  not provide information about causing any damage to
   the  applicant  in  the  material  aspect  of  Article 35(3)(b) of the
   Convention  in  relation to the imposition of administrative penalties
   on  the  applicant.  Thus,  in  the  present case, the decision of the
   European Court in Zwinkels v. the Netherlands (No. 16593/10, 9 October
   2012,  S:  25) that "the application is not in any way relevant to the
   fine  imposed on the applicant" should be applied. Therefore, there is
   no material aspect in the present case.

   In  any  case, the amount of fines imposed on the applicant, amounting
   to 1,000 rubles (less than 25 Euros), according to the case-law allows
   the  European  Court to conclude that the applicant did not suffer any
   significant  disadvantage  (please  see  Burov  v.  Moldova, mentioned
   above;  UHL v. the Czech Republic (Decision) No. 1848/12, 25 September
   2012; Ionescu v. Romania (Decision) No. 36659/04, 1 June 2010). In UHL
   v.  the Czech Republic, the Court decided that "the loss of the amount
   [47 Euros], is not a significant damage".

   In  addition,  this  application is similar to a case Shefer v. Russia
   (decision dated 13 March 2012, No. 45175/04) in which the court stated
   that "the objections of the applicant limited to general references to
   her "meager salary"... there are no specific arguments with respect to
   her personal circumstances".

   As  for  the importance of the case for the applicant, the authorities
   of the Russian Federation stress that the materials of the application
   do  not  contain  information  that  the fact of finding the applicant
   liable for committing the administrative offence would have a negative
   impact  on  her  position.  The  present  case  is very different, for
   example, from the case Luchninova v. Ukraine (Order dated 9 June 2011,
   application  No.  16347/02  S:S:  49,  50) in which the European Court
   found  that  the  causing of significant disadvantage to the applicant
   can  relate  to  the  fact  that  the  finding  that the applicant had
   committed an administrative offence was the reason for her dismissal.

   Whether the respect of the human rights is a basis for hearing of this
   case?

   Article  35(3)(b)  of  the Convention obliges the Court to examine the
   case,  in  any  event,  if  it is required on the basis of respect for
   human  rights.  This  principle  applies, if the case is affected by a
   general  issue which affects compliance with the Convention (Shefer v.
   Russia, mentioned above).

   The  European Court has frequently decided that the examination of the
   applications  on the basis of respect for human rights is not required
   if the issues raised in the applications have already been the subject
   of  examination  by the Court (Bazelyuk v. Ukraine (Decision) dated 27
   March  2012, No. 49275/08; Jancev v. The former Republic of Macedonia,
   dated 4 October 2011, No. 18761/09).

   Regarding  the  issues  raised  in the present application, there is a
   well-established  case law of the European Court on the application of
   Clause  6  of  the Convention for "administrative" proceedings (Sergey
   Zolotukhin  v.  Russia  dated  10 February 2010, No. 14939/03; Lutz v.
   Germany,  dated  25  August  1987,  No. 9912/82; Schmautzer v. Austria
   dated  23  October  1995,  No.  15523/89; Menesheva v. Russia, dated 9
   March  2006,  No. 59261/00), as well as providing legal aid (Benham v.
   The  United  Kingdom  dated 10 June 1996, No. 19380/92; McVicar v. The
   United Kingdom, dated 7 May 2002, No. 46311/99).

   Therefore,  the  authorities  of  the  Russian Federation believe that
   under  the  meaning  of  Article 35(3)(b) of the Convention concerning
   respect  for  human  rights  the examination of the application is not
   required.

   Whether the case had been properly heard in the domestic court?

   Article  35(3)(b) of the Convention does not allow the Court to refuse
   to   examine   an   application  on  the  basis  of  the  criteria  of
   inadmissibility  if  the  case  was not properly heard by the national
   court (Bazelyuk v. Ukraine, mentioned above).

   The  applicant's cases about administrative offenses had been heard by
   the  courts  of  first  and  appellate  instances.  During  the trial,
   Mikhailova   V.N.   filed  numerous  number  of  motions,  which  were
   considered  by the court, and most of them were accepted (allowed). As
   to the refusal of an application for legal aid, the courts based their
   decision  on the fact that the rules of the Administrative Code do not
   provide  for  the provision of advocate to a person brought before the
   court  in  relation to administrative liability. In this situation, we
   should  mention  the  decision  in a case Korolev v. Russia (mentioned
   above)  in  which the European Court, recognizing that the applicant's
   case  was  duly considered by the national court pointed out that "the
   original  claims made to the authorities were considered by the Courts
   of  two  instances...  His  subsequent  claim  ... was rejected by the
   District   Court  on  the  grounds  of  not  complying  with  domestic
   procedural  requirements.  The  claimant  has  not complied with these
   requirements  ...  This  situation  is  not  a denial of access to the
   justice system, which may be imputed by the authorities".

   In   addition,  it  is  necessary  to  mention  that  the  applicant's
   allegations  that  the courts, when considering applications for legal
   aid,  did  not  consider  her  references  to  the  provisions  of the
   Convention  do  not  correspond to reality and are contradicted by the
   content of the decision dated 19 December 2007 by the Justice of Peace
   of  the Judicial District Number 201 of the City of St. Petersburg and
   the  decision  dated  11  March  2008 made by the Court of Dzerzhinsky
   District in which the applicant's motions were dismissed.

   Thus,  the  case  of  the  applicant was duly examined by the national
   court  and  comply  with  the  meaning  of  Article  35(3)(b)  of  the
   Convention.

   Based on what is said above, the authorities of the Russian Federation
   believe  that  all three conditions of the criteria of inadmissibility
   under  Article 35(3)(b) of the Convention are met and, therefore, this
   application should be declared inadmissible.

                        Answer to the Question No.2

   When determining the applicability in a particular case the provisions
   of Article 6 of the Convention, the European Court establishes whether
   there  is  a  "criminal charge" or whether "civil rights" are affected
   (Escoubet v. Belgium, dated 28 October 1999, No. 26780/95, S: 31).

   First,  the  authorities  of  the  Russian Federation stress that this
   application  contains  allegations  of  violations  of the applicant's
   rights which are guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention only in the
   criminal context.

   Accordingly  in  this case it is possible to use the conclusion of the
   European  Court  in Escoubet v. Belgium case (mentioned above, S: 39),
   in which the Court, while recognizing the non-applicability of Article
   6  of  the  Convention,  stated  that the applicant did not submit any
   materials about the fact that his "civil rights" were infringed.

   In addition, to a large extent the approach of the European Court used
   in  the  case  Gutfreund v. France, (dated 12 June 2003, No. 45681/99)
   may apply to the present case.

   In  that  case,  firstly  the  Court pointed out that "the applicant's
   application is only about providing legal aid".

   The  European  Court further found that Article 6 of the Convention in
   the  criminal  aspect  did  not  apply  to  this  case  because of the
   following reasons.

   "Provision  of  legal  aid  relates  exclusively  to  providing  legal
   assistance  to  the applicant and not to establish guilt, or measuring
   the  penalty. It also does not apply to legal or factual circumstances
   of the case".

   The  Court,  referring to the earlier decision on the admissibility of
   the  same  application,  said that based on the amount of the fine and
   the  nature  of  the  proceedings,  "the  interests  of justice do not
   require  the  provision  of  legal  assistance to the applicant" (more
   detailed analysis of the decision of the case is given below).

   "Despite of the denial to provide legal aid to the applicant, in light
   of  the  possible  results  and  the  nature  of  the proceedings, the
   applicant  could  either  appear  in  person  before  a  court,  or be
   represented by an advocate".

   "The  denial  to  provide  legal  aid  is  not  the decisive factor in
   bringing the applicant to... liability".

   Upon recognition of the fact that Article 6 of the Convention does not
   apply in the civil context, the Court stated the following.

   "...The  Court  will  first decide the question of whether the alleged
   "right"  for  legal  aid  is  recognized by the national law or by the
   Convention".

   Again  referring  to  the  decision  on  the admissibility of the same
   application,  the  Court  decided  that  "in  the  present  case,  the
   Convention  does  not  guarantee  the  provision  of  legal aid to the
   applicant..."

   "Thus,  the  question,  whether  it is possible in the present case to
   claim  about  the  presence  of  this right, shall be resolved only by
   reference to the provisions of national law".

   After  analyzing  the  appropriate  provisions  of the French law, the
   Court  concluded  that  the  national legislation does not establish a
   right for legal aid.

   "The  applicant ... did not have the right, which undoubtedly has been
   recognized by national law".

   Once  again,  emphasizing  the  small  amount  of  the  fine  and  the
   "simplicity"  of  the proceedings, the Court indicated that the denial
   of  providing  legal  aid  "did  not  affect  the applicant's right to
   justice".

   As  in  Gutfreund  v.  France  this  application  also  relates to the
   examination  by  national  courts  of an applicant's motions for legal
   aid. The relevant national legislation, the Code of the Administrative
   Offences  of  the  Russian  Federation,  does not provide the right to
   provide  legal  assistance  to  the  person  brought  to Court over an
   administrative  offence.  However  the  applicant  in  accordance with
   Clause  25.1  of  the CoAO had the right to decide independently about
   the  participation  of the defendant in the proceedings. The amount of
   fines  imposed  on  the  applicant (under 25 Euros), is inconspicuous.
   Proceedings  in  administrative  cases  are "simple", according to the
   criteria  set  out  in  the decision of the European Court in the case
   Gutfreund  v.  France dated 25 April 2002 on admissibility (please see
   below).

   Taking  into  consideration  the  arguments,  the  authorities  of the
   Russian Federation believe that, in the present case, Article 6 of the
   Convention does not apply.

   However,   it   must   be   emphasized   that  the  applicant  in  the
   administrative  offense  cases  was given the entire set of procedural
   rights  under  the  CoAO,  which  were brought to her attention and of
   which she took full advantage.

   As  stated  above,  in  the facts of the case and in the answer to the
   first  question of the European Court, during the national proceedings
   Mikhailova  V.  N. filed numerous motions which were considered by the
   court,  and  most  of them were accepted. A motion for providing legal
   aid to the applicant was denied because under the rules of the Code of
   the  Administrative  Offences  of  the  Russian Federation there is no
   requirement  to  provide  an  advocate to a person brought to Court in
   relation  to  an administrative liability. In this case, the applicant
   had  the  right  by  herself  to  decide  about the involvement of the
   defendant in the trial.

   On  the issue of providing to the applicant legal aid in the interests
   of  justice  based  on  the facts of the case, the Russian authorities
   believe  that  it  necessary  again  to refer to the case Gutfreund v.
   France (decision on admissibility).

   In  the mentioned decision, the Court, recognizing the unacceptability
   of   the  application  about  violation  of  Article  6(3)(c)  of  the
   Convention,  stated  that  the interests of justice do not require the
   provision  of legal assistance to the applicant based on the fact that
   the  participation of the defendant is not required under the national
   law,  the  amount  of  the fine imposed on the applicant, and the fact
   that  the  proceedings  in their nature are "simple" and accessible to
   the applicant, even if he/she does not have extensive knowledge of the
   legal profession.

   The  above  approach  of the European Court is fully applicable to the
   present case for the following reasons.

   As  stated above provisions of the Code of the Administrative Offences
   of the Russian Federation does not require the mandatory participation
   of the defendant in administrative offences cases.

   The amount of fines imposed on the applicant is small, considering and
   following the practice of the European Court.

   Proceedings  in  the  cases  about  the administrative offences may be
   considered  as "simple" according to the same criteria as in this case
   Gutfreund  v.  France  -  "hearing  of  the  case  is  in  oral form,"
   "participation  of the representative is not required", the person who
   was  taken  to  the court "personally participates in the hearings and
   provides any arguments as a defense which are necessary ".

   In addition, in the decision Mata Jara v. Spain (dated 4 May 2000, No.
   43550/98)  about  the  admissibility  of the application, the European
   Court,  along  with  the above mentioned criteria, noted that "nothing
   can  prevent  the applicant to challenge or deny the facts that he was
   charged with ... despite the fact of the absence of an advocate. "

   In  addition,  the authorities of the Russian Federation would like to
   draw  the  attention  of  the  European Court to the written materials
   submitted  by  the  applicant  to  the national courts which were also
   signed  by  the  applicant  (written explanations on the merits of the
   case  and  many other motions). The content of these documents and the
   language  used  in  them  allow  us to conclude that the applicant was
   familiar  with the applicable provisions of national law, and was able
   to  defend  herself  in  person  during  hearing of the administrative
   offences cases.

   Based  on  what is stated above, and representing the interests of the
   Russian   Federation   in   accordance  with  the  Regulation  on  the
   Representative  of  the  Russian  Federation  at the European Court of
   Human  Rights,  appointed by the Order of the President of the Russian
   Federation, dated 29 March 1998, No. 310,

                                 I REQUEST:

   to  acknowledge  the  application  of  Valentina Nikolaevna Mikhailova
   about  the  alleged violation of her rights guaranteed by Article 6 of
   the Convention, as inadmissible within the meaning Article 35(3)(b) of
   the Convention.

   to  acknowledge that provisions of Article 6 of the Convention are not
   applicable in the present case.

   if  the  European  Court  finds  that  the Mikhailova's application is
   admissible,  and  considers that Article 6 of the Convention apply, to
   acknowledge  that  the  application is manifestly unsatisfied with the
   meaning  of  Article  35(3)(a)  of the Convention and to dismiss it in
   accordance with Article 35(4) of the Convention.

   Annexes comprise 42 pages.

                                                            G.O.Matushkin

   60938327v2


, , :

.      


:

  Diaspora*

:

:

:

(? ? ? OpenID?)

e-mail ( , - ):

:

( -):

        

 

 

15.05.2015. "" .