THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ANTONOV v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 72900/11)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24 February 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Antonov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peeter Roosma, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Mikhail Lobov, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 February 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 6 February 2012.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
3. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicant complained that he had been denied an opportunity to appear in person before the court in two sets of civil proceedings to which he was a party.
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION5. The applicant complained that his right to a fair hearing had been breached on account of the domestic courts’ refusal of his requests to appear in court. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
6. The Court notes that the applicant, detainee at the time of the events, was not afforded an opportunity to attend hearings in the two sets of the civil proceedings to which he was a party. The details of those domestic proceedings are indicated in the appended table.
7. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to present one’s case effectively before a court and to enjoy equality of arms with the opposing side, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, §§ 59-60, ECHR 2005-II). In particular, if a detainee is a party to a civil dispute and expresses a wish to attend a hearing, according to the Court’s approach, it is incumbent on the domestic judicial authorities (1) to assess whether the nature of the dispute requires his or her personal presence and (2) to put in place procedural arrangements aiming at guaranteeing his or her effective participation in the proceedings (see Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, §§ 33- 48, 16 February 2016). In Yevdokimov and Others, the Court has found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts’ failure to comply with the said requirements.
8. Having examined all the material submitted to it in the present case, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case (i) by failing to properly assess the nature of the civil claims brought by the applicant with a view to deciding whether his presence was indispensable and by focussing instead on deficiencies in the domestic law which does not provide for civil parties’ mandatory presence in court, and (ii) by failing to consider any appropriate procedural arrangements enabling the applicant to be heard, the domestic courts deprived him of the opportunity to present his cases effectively and did not meet their obligation to ensure respect for the “fair trial” guarantee enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention.
9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION10. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Igranov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42933/13 and 8 others, § 40, 20 March 2018), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.
12. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Declares the application admissible;Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the applicant’s absence from civil proceedings;Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 February 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter Roosma
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(applicant’s absence from civil proceedings)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Nature of the dispute
Final decision
First-instance hearing date
Court
Appeal hearing date
Court
Final decision date
Court
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
72900/11
06/02/2012
Vitaliy Nikolayevich ANTONOV
1970
proceedings concerning compensation for damage caused by criminal prosecution
28/02/2013
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow
28/10/2013
Moscow City Court
28/10/2013
Moscow City Court
1,950
defamation proceedings
05/10/2010
Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow
02/09/2011
Moscow City Court
02/09/2011
Moscow City Court
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.