THIRD SECTION
CASE OF GRUZDA v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 63833/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 April 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gruzda v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Helen Keller, President,
Johannes Silvis,
Alena Poláčková, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 March 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 63833/09) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Roman Vitalyevich Gruzda (“the applicant”), on 20 November 2009.
2. The applicant was represented by Mrs T. Borisenko, a lawyer practising in Krasnodar. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 21 June 2010 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Krasnodar.
5. On 24 March 2009 the Military Court of Novorossiysk Garrison (Новороссийский гарнизонный военный суд) convicted the applicant of laundering of the proceeds of crime and sentenced him to a fine.
6. On 21 May 2009 the Military Court of the North-Caucasian Command (Северо-Кавказский окружной военный суд) acquitted the applicant on appeal.
7. On 21 July 2009 the Presidium of the Military Court of the North‑Caucasian Command, on a public prosecutor’s initiative, annulled the judgment of 21 May 2009 by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the appeal court. The annulment was reasoned by two main arguments: (1) unresolved contradictions between witnesses’ statements pertaining to the applicant’s criminal intent, and (2) absence in the appeal judgment of a summary of the arguments presented by the prosecution during the appeal proceedings.
8. On 6 August 2009 the Military Court of the North-Caucasian Command, acting on appeal, reversed the judgment of 24 March 2009 and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the trial court.
9. In 2010 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were terminated due to decriminalization of his actions under the domestic law.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
10. The relevant domestic law governing supervisory review in criminal proceedings at the material time has been summarised in the case Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004‑II (extracts).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION
11. The applicant complained in substance that the annulment of the final judgment of acquittal violated his rights as provided in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
A. Admissibility
12. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
13. The applicant claimed that the annulment of the final judgment of acquittal via supervisory review procedure was in breach of the legal certainty requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
14. The Government stated that the annulment was in compliance with the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of Convention, because it had been necessitated by the fundamental judicial errors made by the domestic courts in trial and appeal proceedings.
15. The Court notes from the outset that the possibility of reopening a criminal case is as such compatible with the Convention, including the guarantees of Article 6 as long as the actual manner in which it is used does not impair the very essence of a fair trial. In other words, the power to reopen criminal proceedings must be exercised by the authorities so as to strike, to the maximum extent possible, a fair balance between the interests of the individual and the need to ensure the effectiveness of the system of criminal justice (see Nikitin v. Russia, no. 50178/99, § 56-58, ECHR 2004‑VIII).
16. Previously the Court indicated that the fundamental defects in the proceedings justifying annulment of a final and binding judgment may include jurisdictional errors, serious breaches of court procedure, abuses of power, manifest errors in the application of substantive law or any other weighty reasons stemming from the interests of justice (see Radchikov v. Russia, no. 65582/01, § 48, 24 May 2007).
17. Turning to the facts of the present case the Court notes that on 21 July 2009 the Presidium of the Military Court of the North-Caucasian Command based the annulment of the applicant’s acquittal on two reasons: (1) unresolved contradictions between witnesses’ statements pertaining to the applicant’s criminal intent, and (2) absence in the appeal judgment of a summary of the arguments presented by the prosecution during the appeal proceedings.
18. Having regard to its case-law under Article 6 of the Convention, all of the available material and the arguments of the parties the Court does not find it possible to conclude that the above reasons constituted fundamental defects in the proceedings justifying annulment of the final and binding judgment of the Military Court of the North-Caucasian Command of 21 May 2009.
19. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the annulment of the final judgment of acquittal was in breach of the legal certainty requirements and thus there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
20. 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.”
A. Damage
21. The applicant claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
22. The Government argued that this amount was excessive.
23. Having regard to the circumstances of the present cases the Court making its assessment on equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, awards the applicant EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
24. The applicant did not submit a claim for costs and expenses.
C. Default interest
25. 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. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 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 period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 April 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Marialena TsirliHelen Keller
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy