THIRD SECTION
CASE OF CHEPINOGA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 48836/09 and 4 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 July 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Chepinoga and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 June 2017,
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.
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 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:
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 ...”
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, 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. In particular, the Court dismisses the Government’s argument about belated applications in cases nos. 41652/12 and 27066/13. It notes that the applicants in the two cases first complained to the Court about their absence from civil proceedings in letters dispatched on 22 May 2012 and 17 March 2013, respectively, that is within the six months after the final judgments in their cases (see the appended table for further details). Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court 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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. 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.”
12. 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.
13. 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 applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the applicants’ 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 6 July 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtLuis López Guerra
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 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]
48836/09
06/05/2009
Anatoliy Anatolyevich Chepinoga
02/03/1964
non-pecuniary damages for bad conditions of detention
08/10/2009
Abakan Town Court of the Khakassiya Republic
27/01/2010
Supreme Court of the Khakassiya Republic
1,500
41652/12
22/05/2012
Viktor Valeryevich Sablin
11/03/1976
non-pecuniary damages for wrongful conviction
02/08/2011
Tsentralnyy District Court of Chita
28/12/2011
Zabaykalskiy Regional Court
1,500
27066/13
17/03/2013
Andrey Mikhaylovich Korolenko
09/03/1968
victim’s claim for damages
13/08/2012
Leninskiy District Court of Vladimir
29/11/2012
Vladimirskiy Regional Court
1,500
19691/14
07/04/2014
German Nikolayevich Vyushkin
31/01/1976
non-pecuniary damages for bad conditions of detention (no doors in the restrooms; mould on the walls)
04/12/2013
Omutninskiy District Court of the Kirov Region
18/02/2014
Kirov Regional Court
1,500
35134/14
01/08/2014
Marsel Mirgayazovich Garayev
12/01/1978
non-pecuniary damages for unlawful criminal prosecution
21/10/2013
Aznakayevo Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic
16/01/2014
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
1,500
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy