Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)167
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Nine cases against the Russian Federation
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 7 June 2017
at the 1288th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
Application No.
Case
Judgment of
Final on
73225/01
FEDOTOVA
13/04/2006
13/09/2006
26716/03
BARASHKOVA
29/04/2008
29/07/2008
6945/04
ILATOVSKIY
09/07/2009
09/10/2009
6110/03
Kuptsov and Kuptsova
03/03/2011
03/06/2011
38697/02+
LARYAGIN AND ARISTOV
08/01/2009
08/04/2009
14370/03
Moskovets
23/04/2009
23/07/2009
75911/01
PETR SEVASTYANOV
14/06/2011
14/09/2011
5433/02
SHABANOV AND TREN
14/12/2006
14/03/2007
8026/04
YEGORYCHEV
17/05/2016
17/08/2016
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),
Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the violations established;
Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:
- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;
Having examined the information provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see Appendix);
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)167
Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the Fedotova group of cases against the Russian Federation
Case summaries
This group of nine cases concerns the unlawful composition of the domestic courts due to the authorities’ failure to observe the provisions of the Lay Judges Act, following which lay judges were appointed with procedural irregularities. Accordingly, the European Court considered that the courts which had decided the applicants’ cases were not “tribunals established by law” (violations of Article 6 § 1). The cases of Fedotova, Barashkova, and Shabanov and Tren concern civil proceedings, whereas the other six cases concern criminal proceedings.
The Court also found other violations in these cases: poor conditions of detention in a police facility (violation of Article 3 in the case of Kuptsov and Kuptsova); unlawful detention (violation of Article 5 § 1 in the cases of Kuptsov and Kuptsova and Moskovets); unreasonably lengthy detention (violation of Article 5 § 3 in the cases of Kuptsov and Kuptsova and Moskovets); lengthy detention appeal proceedings, lack of legal assistance and absence of the applicant and his counsel at the appeal instance (violation of Article 5 § 4 in the case of Kuptsov and Kuptsova); and interference with the right of individual petition by way of pressure on the applicant’s representative (violation of Article 34 in the case of Fedotova).
The general measures in response to the other violations found by the European Court in these cases are examined within the context of the relevant groups or cases, as follows. Poor conditions of detention in a police facility are examined in the Fedotov group; other issues concerning detention and related proceedings are examined in the Klyakhin group and pressure on applicants’ representative in connection with their application to the Court is examined in the Ryabov case.
I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Name and application number
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
Paid on
Fedotova (73225/01)
-
EUR 1 000
EUR 800
EUR 1 800
06/12/2006
Barashkova (26716/03)
-
EUR 500
EUR 15
EUR 515
17/10/2008
Ilatovskiy (6945/04)
-
-
-
-
-
Kuptsov and Kuptsova (6110/03)
-
-
-
-
-
Laryagin and Aristov (38697/02)
-
EUR 500 to each applicant
-
EUR 1 000
26/08/2009
Moskovets (14370/03)
-
EUR 10,000
EUR 12,500
EUR 22 500
23/10/2009
Petr Sevastyanov (75911/01)
-
EUR 3,000
-
EUR 3 000
06/10/2011
Shabanov and Tren (5433/02)
-
EUR 500 to each applicant
-
EUR 1 000
15/06/2007
Yegorychev (8026/04)
-
EUR 8 000
EUR 4 525
EUR 12 525
30/09/2016
b) Other individual measures
As regards the civil proceedings, the proceedings in the Fedotova case were reopened and discontinued in view of the liquidation of the respondent company without a successor. The applicants in the cases of Barashkova and Shabanov and Tren have not applied for a reopening of the proceedings. It appears that in these situations no other individual measure is required.
As regards the criminal proceedings, in the case of Kuptsov and Kuptsova, in which only the first applicant was convicted and sentenced to seven and a half years’ imprisonment, the first applicant has not applied for a reopening of his criminal proceedings. He had been released before the delivery of the European Court’s judgment in this case. In all the other cases, the criminal proceedings against the applicants were reopened and reconsidered either by newly composed tribunals or by the Supreme Court. The applicants have not complained either to the Committee of Ministers or to the European Court that the reopened proceedings were conducted by tribunals not established by law.
As to the violations concerning the detention and detention-related proceedings, the applicants concerned had been released and the proceedings had ended before the delivery of the relevant judgments by the European Court.
As to the pressure on the applicant’s representative in connection with the application to the Court in the case of Fedotova, the applicant was awarded by the Court with compensation for non-pecuniary damage incurred, inter alia, by this violation. The violation was of momentary nature and did not continue after the delivery of the judgment.
Against this background, no further individual measures are required in this group of cases.
II. General measures
A) Legislative reforms
As regards civil cases, the Introductory Act to the 2003 Code of Civil Procedure repealed the 2000 Lay Judges Act in accordance with which lay judges were selected and appointed at the material time. Since 2003, only professional judges can participate in the administration of justice in civil cases.
As regards criminal cases, the general measures in response to the Court’s findings in the present group, namely, removal of a provision allowing for participation of lay judges in criminal proceedings, were adopted in the context of the execution of the European Court’s judgment in the Posokhov case, closed by Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2004)46 in July 2004.
B) Publication and dissemination
All the judgments were published and disseminated among the competent authorities.
III.Conclusions of the respondent State
The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases and that these measures will prevent similar violations. The Russian Federation has, therefore, complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy