Case Vasenin v. Russia: Effectiveness of defense and the quality of the free legal aid

Available in Russian

Author: Olga Shepeleva

DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2016-4-3-11

Keywords: effective defense; European Court of Human Rights; legal aid quality; state-appointed advocate


This article provides an overview of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on issues of legal aid provided by appointed advocates to people charged with criminal offence. The focus of the article are the ECtHR judgments in cases against Russia and, in particular, recent judgment in case Vasenin v. Russia. The analysis of mentioned judgments intends to identify the ECtHR requirements to the quality of legal aid on criminal cases. Qualityof legal aid is an issue which is relatively rarely examined by the ECtHR. In judgments, including those delivered on applications against Russia, the Court more often elaborates upon the same opportunity to enjoy right to legal aid, or upon conditions of defense, such as confidential communication between accused and appointed lawyer or facilities and time necessary for appointed advocate to study the case-file. At the same time, it is not sufficient to appoint an advocate and open access to the defendant and to respective case files. Quality of assistance is also an important aspect of right to legal aid. Courts or other competent officials should react when the quality of defense provided by appointed lawyer is manifestly low. Domestic authorities in cooperation with professional legal community should also take measures to maintain a proper quality of defense. The ECtHR position on this issue is quite important, especially in the light of ongoing discussion on the quality of assistance provided by appointed advocates, which is taking place within the Russian legal community. The article compares requirements formulated by the ECtHR with approaches to protect and ensure quality of criminal legal aid in Russia.

About the author: Olga Shepeleva – Ph.D. student, Department of Judicial Power and Justice Administration, Higher School of Economics.

Citation: Shepeleva O. (2016) Delo Vasenin protiv Rossii: Effektivnost' zashchity i kachestvo besplatnoy yuridicheskoy pomoshchi: Kommentariy k postanovleniyu ESPCH ot 21 iyunya 2016 goda (zhaloba N 48023/06) [Case Vasenin v. Russia: Effectiveness of defense and the quality of the free legal aid: A commentary to the judgment of the ECHR of 21 June 2016 (application no. 48023/06)]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no. 4, pp. 3–11. (In Russian).


Dikov G. V. (2014) Uchastie advokata v sudebnom protsesse: podkhody Evropeyskogo Suda [Participation of the defendant counsel in the trial: approaches of the European Court], Moscow: Razvitie pravovykh sistem. (In Russian).

Mel'nichenko R. G. (2013) Kachestvo yuridicheskoy pomoshchi advokata “po naznacheniyu” [Quality of the legal aid of the “appointed” counsel]. Ugolovny protsess, no. 5, pp. 30–39. (In Russian).

Shepeleva O. (2014) Pytki kak faktor narusheniya prava na spravedlivoe sudebnoe razbiratel'stvo: obzor praktiki Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka po rossiyskim delam [Torture as a factor in violating the right to a fair trial: a review of the European Court of Human Rights' practice in Russian cases]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no. 3, pp. 11–17.