THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ANTIPIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 28590/11 and 3 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20 September 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Antipin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 August 2018,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained that they had been denied an opportunity to appear in person before the court in the civil proceedings to which they were parties. In application no. 28590/11, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained principally that their right to a fair hearing had been breached on account of the domestic courts’ refusal of their requests to appear in court. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
7. The Court reiterates that the applicants, detainees at the time of the events, were not afforded an opportunity to attend hearings in civil proceedings to which they were parties. The details of those domestic proceedings are indicated in the appended table. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to present one’s case effectively before the 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). The Court’s analysis of an alleged violation of the right to a fair trial in respect of cases where incarcerated applicants complain about their absence from hearings in civil proceedings includes the following elements: examination of the manner in which domestic courts assessed the question whether the nature of the dispute required the applicants’ personal presence and determination whether domestic courts put in place any procedural arrangements aiming at guaranteeing their effective participation in the proceedings (see Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, § 48, 16 February 2016).
8. In the leading case of Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, 16 February 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having considered the Government’s objections as to the application of six months and the exhaustion requirement (see Abramyan and Others v. Russia, nos. 38951/13 and 59611/13, 12 May 2015), the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case‑law on the subject, the Court rejects the Government’s objections and considers that in the instant case the domestic courts deprived the applicants of the opportunity to present their cases effectively and failed to meet their obligation to ensure respect for the principle of a fair trial.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11. In the application no. 28590/11, the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
12. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. 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.”
14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
15. The Court 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,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the applicant’s absence from civil proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application no. 28590/11 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the applicant’s absence from civil proceedings;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts 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 amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 September 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(applicant’s absence from civil proceedings)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Nature of the dispute
Final decision
First-instance hearing date
Court
Appeal hearing date
Court
Amount awarded for non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
28590/11
11/04/2011
02/03/2012
Roman Grigoryevich Antipin
20/02/1977
proceedings related to unlawful actions of detention authorities, including their failure to ensure proper conditions of detention
proceedings related to the failure of State authorities to ensure the applicant’s rights, as a detainee, including his right to adequate conditions of detention
21/10/2010
Bratsk City Court
03/08/2011
Bratsk City Court
10/03/2011
Irkutsk Regional Court
08/12/2011
Irkutsk Regional Court
1,950
25511/16
16/08/2016
Andrey Vitalyevich Mokin
07/11/1974
challenging poor conditions of detention in pre-trial detention facility
29/07/2015
Industrialny District Court of Izhevsk
17/02/2016
Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic
1,500
6485/17
10/01/2017
Yuriy Aleksandrovich Khorov
16/03/1980
compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by negligent medical treatment,
final decision - 20/07/2016, Supreme Court of Russia
17/09/2015
Central District Court of Kaliningrad
27/01/2016
Kaliningrad Regional Court
1,500
15353/17
31/12/2016
Igor Veniaminovich Leontyev
25/11/1965
proceedings under the Code of Administrative Procedure concerning the unlawfulness of the applicant’s placement in a punishment cell in view of his disability status
25/11/2015
Pechyory Town Court of the Komi Republic
09/06/2016
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic (received on 11/07/2016)
1,500
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy