FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 37342/07 Stanislav Oleksandrovych SAMOFALOV against Ukraine lodged on 26 July 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Stanislav Oleksandrovych Samofalov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Kharkiv.

On 1 April 2006 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of committing two crimes. The applicant was subsequently accused of attacking and robbing Ms G. on 3 January 2004 and of hooliganism in a state of alcohol delirium on 1 April 2006.

On 3 April 2006 the police investigator ordered a forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant.

In their conclusion of 3 May 2006, the psychiatric experts noted that at the time of examination the applicant had shown no signs of psychosis or dementia but had suffered from mixed personality disorder and alcohol addiction. According to the expert conclusion, the applicant realised what he was doing and could control his actions. As to the moments, when the suspected crimes had been committed, the experts concluded that during the robbery in 2004 the applicant had had no mental disorder but had been drunk and realised what he was doing and could control his actions, while during the hooliganism in 2006 the applicant had demonstrated symptoms of temporary mental disorder in the form of alcohol withdrawal state with delirium and did not realise what he was doing, nor could he control his actions. The experts concluded that at the time of examination the applicant did not require compulsory medical treatment and noted that the issue of whether the applicant needed compulsory medical treatment for alcoholism was not for them to decide.

On 20 June 2006 the Kharkiv Dzerzhinskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of robbery and hooliganism as charged and sentenced him to five years ’ imprisonment. The court noted that in deciding on the form of punishment it took into account the applicant ’ s present state of health.

The applicant did not appeal to the regional court of appeal, but lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court of Ukraine. He complained that he had not been allowed to prepare his defence as he had been denied an access to the case-file. He further complained that despite his mental state of mixed personality disorder he had not received the assistance of a lawyer although he needed it. He also complained that he could not be sentenced for hooliganism as he did not realise what he was doing at that time and this had been confirmed by the forensic experts.

On 12 June 2007 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of the first-instance court. In reply to the applicant ’ s complaints, the court noted that there were no significant procedural flaws that would necessitate the quashing of the judgment.

The applicant lodged a request for an extraordinary review with the Supreme Court. By letter of 10 August 2007, the Supreme Court informed the applicant that there were no grounds for an extraordinary review of his case.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention that he was not given access to the case-file to prepare his defence and that he was not provided with an advocate in the criminal proceedings despite his mental state. He further complains under Article 7 of the Convention that he could not be held liable for the hooliganism as he did not realise what he was doing at the time of the offence due to mental disorder. He also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that the Supreme Court refused his cassation appeal and his request for extraordinary review. He finally complains under Article 14 that the criminal proceedings against him were politically motivated, as he was member of a nationalist party and was previously convicted for participation in a political demonstration.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention? In particular, was he allowed to study his criminal case-file in order to prepare for trial?

2. Was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention? Was the applicant afforded free legal assistance, within the meaning of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention? In particular, did the interests of justice, inter alia on account of the applicant ’ s state of mental health, require such assistance?