CASE OF ARTEMENKO v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)
Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom
5. The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Roslavl, the Smolensk Region. 6. On 15 June 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of unintentional manslaughter. On 30 September 2003 he was committed to stand trial before the Leninskiy District Court of Smolensk. On 10 October 2003 the District Court fixed the first trial hearing and ordered that the applicant should remain in custody. 7. On 26 April 2004 the Leninskiy District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. The judgment became final on 10 July 2004 when the Smolensk Regional Court upheld it on appeal. 8. In February 2005 the applicant lodged an action with the Leninskiy District Court, arguing that his detention from 2 to 26 April 2004 had been unlawful as there had been no legal order authorizing his detention during that period. He sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 9. On 23 September 2005 the Leninskiy District Court, in the presence of a defendant’s representative, dismissed the applicant’s action, finding that the applicant’s conviction precluded him from claiming compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damages. Its operative part reads as follows: “Given that Mr Artemenko was found guilty of the crime in relation to which he had been detained since 17 June 2003, he did not acquire the right to exoneration and to compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Therefore, there exist no grounds for satisfying Mr Artemenko’s claim for compensation in respect of his unlawful detention pending trial.” 10. The applicant appealed, complaining, inter alia, that the District Court had refused to secure his attendance and had not provided him with copies of materials presented by the defendants. He also maintained his initial claim for compensation. 11. On 29 November 2005 the Smolensk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 23 September 2005 in the applicant’s absence.