The examination of a case without public hearing violates the fair trial
JUDGMENT
Lambin v. Russia 21.11.2017 (no. 12668/08)
SUMMARY
The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that he was sentenced for a murder in respect of a violation of the rights of the defense in the course of criminal proceedings against him. Based on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant claimed that he was not given sufficient time or space to prepare his defense during the criminal proceedings and complained that was tried and convicted without a public hearing. The ECtHR has condemned Russia for violating the fair trial and that the way the case was handled consisted violation of the ECHR.
PROVISIONS
Article 6§1
Article 6§3
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Denis Lambin, is a Russian national who was born in 1984 and is currently serving a
sentence of imprisonment for murder in a correctional colony in the village of Torbeyevo (Mordovia
Republic, Russia). The case concerned his complaint about a breach of his defence rights during the
criminal proceedings against him.
Mr Lambin was convicted in April 2005 at a public hearing, after having been given 35 minutes to
study his case file. His conviction was then upheld on appeal. However, in 2010 the appeal judgment
was quashed as Mr Lambin’s defence rights had been breached. A new round of appeal proceedings
started and Mr Lambin and his lawyer were given another possibility to study the case file. After
studying the case file of about 1,500 pages for five days, they submitted appeal statements referring
extensively to all the main items of evidence, including expert opinions and witness testimony. The
Supreme Court of Russia then examined the case over four hearings held in camera, and upheld the
judgment of April 2005.
Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights,
Mr Lambin alleged that he had not been given adequate time or facilities to prepare his defence
during the criminal proceedings in 2005 or 2010 and complained about being tried and convicted
without a public hearing in 2010.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 6 § 1 – concerning the lack of public hearings
No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) – concerning the allegedly insufficient time and facilities for
the preparation of Mr Lambin’s defence
Just satisfaction: Mr Lambin did not submit a claim for just satisfaction(echrcaselaw.com editing).
