CASE OF DATSKO AND STEPANOV v. RUSSIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF DATSKO AND STEPANOV v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 23734/21 and 26987/21)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

18 July 2024

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Datsko and Stepanov v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Ioannis Ktistakis, President,
 Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,
 Diana Kovatcheva, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 27 June 2024,

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 Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

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 of the domestic courts’ failure to ensure their participation in hearings in the civil proceedings to which they were parties.

THE LAW

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

6.  The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).

7.  The applicants complained that their right to a fair hearing had been breached on account of the domestic courts’ failure to properly and timeously notify them of hearings in the civil proceedings to which they were parties. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

8.  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 the Court’s 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).

9.  In the present case, the applicants, detainees at the time of the events, were not afforded an opportunity to attend hearings of first and appeal instances in civil proceedings to which they were parties (the details of those domestic proceedings are indicated in the appended table). 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 than in Yevdokimov and Others, cited above.

10.  Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant cases 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.

11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

12.  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 1,500 euros (EUR) to Mr Datsko (application no. 23734/21). It further considers that the finding of a violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction, as regards Mr Stepanov (application no. 26987/21) (compare Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 44363/14 and 2 others, § 12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26895/14 and 2 other applications, § 13, 15 September 2022).

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay to Mr Datsko (application no. 23734/21), within three months, EUR 1,500 (one thousand and five hundred euros), 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 during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 July 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 {signature_p_1} {signature_p_2}

 Viktoriya Maradudina Ioannis Ktistakis

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(applicant’s absence from civil proceedings)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.