Не согласны с решением мирового судьи
Petzold, Registrar, and Mr P. Mahoney, Deputy Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 24 November and 27 March , Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights "the Commission" and by the French Government "the Government" on 1 March and 20 April respectively, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. It originated in an application no. The Commission"s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 art.ВИДЕО ПО ТЕМЕ: КАК ОСПОРИТЬ РЕШЕНИЕ СУДА
Дорогие читатели! Наши статьи рассказывают о типовых способах решения юридических вопросов, но каждый случай носит уникальный характер.
Если вы хотите узнать, как решить именно Вашу проблему - обращайтесь в форму онлайн-консультанта справа или звоните по телефонам, представленным на сайте. Это быстро и бесплатно!
VII. Translate the sentences from English into Russian.
Eissen, Registrar, and Mr. Having deliberated in private on 25 and 26 March and on 21 September , Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: The case originated in an application no.
The request referred to Articles 44 and 48 art. The Chamber of seven judges to be constituted included, as ex officio members, Mr. Ganshof van der Meersch, the elected judge of Belgian nationality Article 43 of the Convention art.
On 22 October , the President drew by lot, in the presence of the Registrar, the names of the five other members, namely Mr. Pinheiro Farinha and Mr.
On 25 November, the President exempted Mrs. Bindschedler-Robert from sitting; thereafter she was replaced by Mr. On 1 December , having particular regard to their concurring statements, the President decided that it was not necessary for memorials to be filed; in addition, he directed that the oral proceedings should open on 25 March On 29 January and 8 March , acting on the President's instructions, the Registrar invited the Commission and the Government to supply several documents and also particulars on a factual aspect of the case; these were received on 3 February, 16 February, 2 March and 9 March.
Immediately before their opening, the Chamber had held a preparatory meeting. There appeared before the Court: The Court heard their arguments and observations as well as their replies to questions put by the Court and one of its members.
A supplementary written reply from the Agent of the Government was received by the Registrar on 1 June At the deliberations on 21 September , Mr. Lagergren, the second substitute judge, took the place of Mr. The applicant, a Belgian national born in , is a gunsmith.
He is in the process of serving in Mons prison a sentence of eighteen years' hard labour imposed on him on 10 November by the Brabant Assize Court for murder. During the night of 22 - 23 April , two Frenchmen, Mr.
Gilles Gros and Mr. Michel Dulon, were killed by revolver shots in Brussels whilst they were in a motor-car with Mr. Constantinos Kavadias against whom proceedings were subsequently discontinued and a Portuguese national, Mr. Joao Tadeo Santos de Sousa Gravo.
From the opening of proceedings until reference of the case to the Court of Cassation 9. On 9 July , Mr. Preuveneers, an investigating judge at the Brussels Court of First Instance, issued a warrant for the arrest of the applicant, who was suspected of having caused both deaths.
He was in France at the time, but was arrested by the French authorities who, after agreeing to grant his extradition, handed him over to the Belgian police gendarmerie on 13 January The Courtrai procureur du Roi public prosecutor so informed his colleague in Brussels by a letter of the same date.
Pierre Van de Walle, a senior deputy procureur, initialled the letter and forwarded it to the official in the public prosecutor's department parquet who was dealing with the case, one Mrs.
She transmitted it to Mr. Preuveneers with a covering note apostille dated 17 January. On 4 February , the investigating judge wrote to the Brussels procureur du Roi to enquire whether, as regards the co-accused Santos de Sousa, the public prosecutor's department intended to report the facts to the Portuguese authorities, those authorities apparently being no longer willing to grant his extradition.
On his covering note, the judge added in manuscript, between brackets, the words "for the attention of Mr.
Preuveneers on 9 February After initialling the covering note, Mr. Van de Walle forwarded it to Mr. De Nauw, the deputy who had taken over from Mrs. De Nauw transmitted the note to the investigating judge on 22 June. On 13 December , Mr. Van de Walle took his oath as a judge on the Brussels Court of Appeal, to which office he had been appointed on 18 November.
Most of the investigations had been completed by that time, although some further formal steps were taken at a later date. On 12 May , the deputy, Mr. By judgment of 16 June, the Indictments Chamber Chambre des mises en accusation of the Brussels Court of Appeal remitted the applicant for trial before the Brabant Assize Court on charges of voluntary and premeditated manslaughter of Mr.
The trial took place from 6 to 10 November before the Assize Court which was presided over by Mr. After the court had heard, amongst others, numerous prosecution and defence witnesses, the twelve members of the jury withdrew to consider their verdict.
Piersack had maintained throughout that he was innocent. On the third question put to them, concerning the "principal count", they arrived at a verdict of guilty, but only by seven votes to five. After deliberating on that question in private, the President and the two other judges assesseurs declared that they agreed with the majority.
In the final event, the Assize Court convicted the applicant of the murder of Mr. Dulon and acquitted him as regards the other charges; it accepted that there were mitigating circumstances and sentenced him on 10 November to eighteen years' hard labour. It also recorded that on account of his nationality it had not been possible to obtain the extradition to Belgium of Mr.
Santos de Sousa, who had been arrested in Portugal. The applicant then appealed on points of law to the Court of Cassation. He contended that the words "for the attention of Mr. Van de Walle" appearing in manuscript on the covering note of 4 February see paragraph 10 above showed that Mr.
Van de Walle, and not some other judicial officer in the public prosecutor's department, had been dealing with the matter at the relevant time and had, accordingly, taken some part or other in the investigation of the case. Piersack made no mention of the letter of 13 January and the note of 20 June see paragraphs 9 and 11 above , since at that stage neither he nor his lawyer had identified the author of the initials marked thereon; the Government on their own initiative supplied this information to the Commission in their written observations of March on the admissibility of the application.
Submissions of the public prosecutor's department attached to the Court of Cassation In his submissions, Mr. The Court of Cassation founded this prohibition on a general and absolute principle that was said to derive from the very nature of the functions. It suffices that the judicial officer in the public prosecutor's department personally played some part in the conduct of the prosecution in the case in question.
There is incompatibility as soon as the judicial officer, during the course of the prosecution, has personally intervened in the case in the capacity of member of the public prosecutor's department. As regards the general principle of law whereby cases must be impartially examined by the court, he also referred to judgments of the Belgian Court of Cassation and the Belgian Conseil d'Etat.
In addition, he cited the following passage from an inaugural address of 1 September to the Court of Cassation: Preuveneers had added to the covering note, in manuscript, the words "for the attention of Mr. Van de Walle", thereby indicating the specific addressee for whom the note was personally intended: Van de Walle's attention, it is logical to suppose that he knew that that judicial officer had personally played some part or other in the conduct of the prosecution.
What other reasonable explanation can be given for such a course of action It is of little moment that other judicial officers in the public prosecutor's department intervened in the case, for example to follow up the investigating judge's covering note, or that Mr.
Van de Walle intervened only by chance or occasionally, or that such intervention has not been shown to have implicated the appellant or a co-accused by name or Finally, there would be no reasonable explanation for the handwritten words Van de Walle's intervention in the case had until then been limited to steps that were purely routine or Judgment of the Court of Cassation The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal on 21 February As regards the sixth ground of appeal, the Court of Cassation observed firstly that the mere despatch of the covering note of 4 February did not necessarily show that Mr.
Van de Walle had "acted in the case as public prosecutor", within the meaning of Article of the Judicial Code. It was true that both of these norms obliged a judge to refrain from taking part in the decision if there were a legitimate reason to doubt whether he offered the guarantees of impartiality to which every accused person was entitled.
However, the Court held that the documents which it could take into account did not reveal that after the public prosecutor's department had received the covering note mentioned in the ground of appeal, Mr.
Van de Walle, who was then a senior deputy to the Brussels procureur du Roi, had taken any decision or intervened in any manner whatsoever in the conduct of the prosecution relating to the facts in question.
Admittedly, for a judge's impartiality to be regarded as compromised on account of his previous intervention in the capacity of judicial officer in the public prosecutor's department, it was not essential that such intervention should have consisted of adopting a personal standpoint in the matter or taking a specific step in the process of prosecution or investigation.
Nevertheless, it could not be assumed that a judicial officer in the public prosecutor's department had intervened in a case in or on the occasion of the exercise of his functions as such an officer merely because there was a covering note which had been addressed to him personally by the investigating judge but which had not been shown by any evidence to have been received by the officer or to have caused him to take even an indirect interest in the case.
In this connection, the Court of Cassation noted finally that it was not the senior deputy Van de Walle who had replied to the covering note. The relevant legislation and practice A. In criminal matters, the public prosecutor's department "conducts prosecutions in the manner specified by law" Article , first paragraph, of the Judicial Code.
In that capacity, it investigates, and institutes proceedings in respect of, offences and then, if appropriate, appears at the trial in order to argue the case for the prosecution. All the judicial officers in the public prosecutor's department form a hierarchical body which is generally recognised as being characterised by unity, indivisibility and independence.
He is aided by one or more deputies who are subject to his personal supervision and directions, including one or more senior deputies appointed by Royal Decree who assist him in the management of the public prosecutor's department Article of the Judicial Code. In the Brussels public prosecutor's department, there are several dozen judicial officers all of whom are answerable to the procureur du Roi.
The department is divided into sections, with a senior deputy at the head of each section. In particular, he revises their written submissions to the courts, discusses with them the approach to be adopted in a specific case and, if the occasion arises, gives them advice on points of law.
Van de Walle was the head of this section during the period in question, until his appointment to the Brussels Court of Appeal see paragraph 12 above. According to the Government, the procureur du Roi regarded himself at that time as personally responsible for cases - like Mr.
Piersack's - involving an indictable offence, the number whereof was actually fairly small; he worked on those cases directly with the deputy in charge of the file - on this occasion, Mrs. De Nauw -, rather than through the intermediary of the senior deputy whose principal role was to countersign documents, if not to act as a "letter-box".
Under Article 98 of the Belgian Constitution, a jury has to be constituted in all cases involving an indictable offence. Assizes are held, as a rule at the chief town in each province, in order to try accused persons remitted for trial there by the Court of Appeal Articles to of the Judicial Code and Article of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Each assize court is composed of a President and two other judges assesseurs ; for criminal matters, it sits with a jury of twelve members Articles to of the Judicial Code.
Reasons and Conditions for Easy Order Trial
Eissen, Registrar, and Mr. Having deliberated in private on 25 and 26 March and on 21 September , Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: The case originated in an application no. The request referred to Articles 44 and 48 art. The Chamber of seven judges to be constituted included, as ex officio members, Mr.
In this case the final decision about the use of the institution nevertheless remains for the judge, as the law provides that the court may decide the verdict without trial in a general way, if satisfied that: The accused understands the nature and consequences of the application of the claimed them; The petition was declared voluntarily and after consultation with counsel. The law states that if these conditions and if the public or private prosecutor and or are not met the victim claimed the defendant objected to the application, the court makes a decision on the appointment of a trial in a general manner. So we see that the bases of application of a special order of the trial are as follows: Solaria accused as charged; Solaria public or private prosecutor and the victim's consent to the special order of the trial; The use of a special order of the trial is only possible in certain criminal cases e.
Пьерсак (Piersack) против Бельгии [рус. (извлечение), англ]
Решения судов и документы