Novoselov v Russia
Novoselov v Russia (No. 66469/01) Criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 23 December 1998 the regional court, having examined the grounds of appeal submitted by the applicant's lawyer (of which the applicant was not aware), upheld the applicant's conviction.
The Presidium of the regional court subsequently quashed the judgment of 23 December 1998 on the ground that the court failed to consider the grounds of appeal submitted by the applicant. On 5 December 2001 the regional court held a new appeal hearing and again upheld the applicant's conviction. It appears that the summons was sent to the detention facility where the applicant had served his sentence in 1998-1999.
The judgment of 5 December 2001 was subsequently quashed on the ground that the applicant had not been duly notified of the hearing. The final appeal judgment upheld the applicant's conviction on 18 September 2002. This time the summons was sent to the applicant's last known address available to the court's registry, although the applicant no longer lived at that address and, as a result, did not receive the summons. His application to quash the judgment for that reason was refused.
The applicant's detention and proceedings for compensation
The applicant was kept in a cell measuring approximately 42 sq. m, which accommodated 42 to 51 inmates at any given time. The inmates had to sleep in turns. A lavatory was only separated from the rest of the cell with a bed sheet provided by one of the inmates. The table where the meals were eaten was just one metre away from the lavatory. The ventilation was only switched on when "controllers" visited the facility. Windows were covered with steel plates leaving an open slot of about 10cm. The food served was of very poor quality. Among other aggravating factors were the absence of bedding, swarms of insects, and the inadequate supply of detergents to the prisoners.
During his detention the applicant contracted scabies, nevertheless, he was not isolated from other inmates. He twice (over a period of 6 months) fell ill with flu. By the time of his release, the applicant had lost 15kg in weight, he felt short of breath while walking, he tired easily, could not run, and suffered from general weakness.
On 30 July 2002 the applicant filed a civil action, claiming compensation for damage caused by the "inhuman and degrading" conditions of his detention. The district court dismissed the action and the regional court upheld this decision.
Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights
In its decisions on the admissibility of the application (16 October 2003 and 8 July 2004), the Court found that "the authorities cannot be held responsible for the failure to serve a summons on the applicant, because he did not take necessary steps to ensure receipt of his mail at his new place of residence and was thereby unable to apprise himself of the appeal hearing date". Consequently the application in relation to Article 6(1) was held to be inadmissible.
In its judgment on the merits of the case (2 June 2005), the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3 in relation to the conditions of the applicant's detention. He was awarded €3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and legal costs.
22 June 2005
Click here for the admissibility decision:
Novoselov_admiss
The above admissibility decision is taken from the website of the European Court of Human Rights http://www.echr.coe.int/ and can be accessed via HUDOC on the court's website: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/default.htm
The Court's case-law is also collated in Reports of Judgments and Decisions, published by Carl Heymanns Verlag KG.
Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights
In its decisions on the admissibility of the application (16 October 2003 and 8 July 2004), the Court found that "the authorities cannot be held responsible for the failure to serve a summons on the applicant, because he did not take necessary steps to ensure receipt of his mail at his new place of residence and was thereby unable to apprise himself of the appeal hearing date". Consequently the application in relation to Article 6(1) was held to be inadmissible.
In its judgment on the merits of the case (2 June 2005), the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3 in relation to the conditions of the applicant's detention. He was awarded €3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and legal costs.
22 June 2005
Click here for the admissibility decision:
Novoselov_admiss
The above admissibility decision is taken from the website of the European Court of Human Rights http://www.echr.coe.int/ and can be accessed via HUDOC on the court's website: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/default.htm
The Court's case-law is also collated in Reports of Judgments and Decisions, published by Carl Heymanns Verlag KG.
Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights
In its decisions on the admissibility of the application (16 October 2003 and 8 July 2004), the Court found that "the authorities cannot be held responsible for the failure to serve a summons on the applicant, because he did not take necessary steps to ensure receipt of his mail at his new place of residence and was thereby unable to apprise himself of the appeal hearing date". Consequently the application in relation to Article 6(1) was held to be inadmissible.
In its judgment on the merits of the case (2 June 2005), the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3 in relation to the conditions of the applicant's detention. He was awarded €3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and legal costs.
22 June 2005
Click here for the admissibility decision:
Novoselov_admiss
The above admissibility decision is taken from the website of the European Court of Human Rights http://www.echr.coe.int/ and can be accessed via HUDOC on the court's website: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/default.htm
The Court's case-law is also collated in Reports of Judgments and Decisions, published by Carl Heymanns Verlag KG.
Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights
In its decisions on the admissibility of the application (16 October 2003 and 8 July 2004), the Court found that "the authorities cannot be held responsible for the failure to serve a summons on the applicant, because he did not take necessary steps to ensure receipt of his mail at his new place of residence and was thereby unable to apprise himself of the appeal hearing date". Consequently the application in relation to Article 6(1) was held to be inadmissible.
In its judgment on the merits of the case (2 June 2005), the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3 in relation to the conditions of the applicant's detention. He was awarded €3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and legal costs.
22 June 2005
Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights
In its judgment on the merits of the case (2 June 2005), the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3 in relation to the conditions of the applicant's detention. He was awarded €3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and legal costs.
Click here for the admissibility decision:
Novoselov_admiss
The above admissibility decision is taken from the website of the European Court of Human Rights http://www.echr.coe.int/ and can be accessed via HUDOC on the court's website: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/default.htm
The Court's case-law is also collated in Reports of Judgments and Decisions, published by Carl Heymanns Verlag KG.
 |
| Criminal Justice |
 |
| Lopata v Russia |
|
| Klyakhin v Russia |
|
| Novoselov v Russia |
|
| Zolotukhin v Russia |
|
| Gusev v Russia |
|
| Sukhov v Russia |
|
| Ryabikin v Russia |
|
| G3 v Russia |
|
| G4 v Russia |
|
| T2 v Russia |
|
 |
