FIRST SECTION
CASE OF KOSTIN v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 23464/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 May 2011
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kostin v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 12 April 2011,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 23464/06) 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 Sergey Anatolyevich Kostin (“the applicant”), on 1 April 2006.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr I.V. Sivoldayev, a lawyer practising in Voronezh. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 29 January 2009 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Voronezh.
5. On 11 April 2005 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the local administration seeking formal acknowledgment of his entitlement to child benefits and the relevant arrears.
6. On 27 July 2005 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh (“the District Court”) dismissed his claims finding that he was not eligible for the sought benefits. The applicant appealed against the judgment.
7. On 4 October 2005 the District Court summoned the applicant to appear at the appeal hearing fixed for 27 October 2005. There is no evidence that the summons was dispatched or that the applicant indeed received it.
8. On 27 October 2005 the Voronezh Regional Court examined and dismissed as unfounded the applicant’s appeal. The applicant was absent from the appeal hearing, and the appeal court did not examine the question of his due notification at the hearing.
9. According to the applicant, on 1 December 2005 he inquired about the date of the appeal hearing at the registry of the District Court and was told that the Voronezh Regional Court had already examined and dismissed his appeal.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
10. The applicant complained that he had not been notified of the appeal hearing of 27 October 2005. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
A. Admissibility
11. The Government submitted that Article 6 was not applicable to the proceedings initiated by the applicant as they had concerned a dispute over social benefits which were not guaranteed by the Convention. Alternatively, they suggested that the applicant’s complaint was manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
12. The applicant objected to this argument referring to the Court’s findings on a similar issue in the case of Bulgakova v. Russia (no. 69524/01, 18 January 2007).
13. The Court is aware that various socio-economic rights, such as the right to child benefits provided by the State, have their origin in the public law and as such are not protected by the Convention. However, the fact that a substantive right is not protected by the Convention does not exclude a dispute over such a right from the scope of Article 6. It is beyond doubt that the child benefits, which are purely economic in nature, are “civil” rights within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see Francesco Lombardo v. Italy, 26 November 1992, § 17, Series A no. 249‑B; Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 46, Series A no. 263; and Massa v. Italy, 24 August 1993, § 26, Series A no. 265-B). It follows that Article 6 is applicable.
14. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
15. The Government stated that the applicant had been notified of the appeal hearing of 27 October 2005 in good time. To support their argument, they submitted a copy of the summons of 4 October 2005 signed by a judge and bearing a stamp of the District Court’s registry with the registration number and date of the letter.
16. The applicant maintained his complaint adding that there was no evidence that he had received the summons.
17. The Court observes that the Government did not present any evidence showing that the summons had in fact been dispatched and that it had reached the applicant. It further observes that the appeal court neglected to verify whether the applicant had been duly notified of the appeal hearing.
18. The Court recalls that it has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see, among others, Yakovlev v. Russia, no. 72701/01, § 19 et seq., 15 March 2005; Groshev v. Russia, no. 69889/01, § 27 et seq., 20 October 2005; and Subbotkin v. Russia, no. 837/03, § 21, 12 June 2008).
19. Having examined the materials submitted to it, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. It has established that owing to the absence of notification the applicant has been deprived of an opportunity to attend the appeal hearing.
20. It follows that there was a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
21. The applicant also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the courts had refused to recognise his right to receive child benefits and had dismissed his related claim for arrears.
22. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in these provisions in that respect. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
23. 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
24. The applicant claimed 1,100 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. He also claimed EUR 10,000 as pecuniary damage allegedly sustained as a result of the authorities’ failure to pay him the child benefits sought in the domestic proceedings.
25. The Government disagreed with both claims considering them unsubstantiated.
26. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, it awards the applicant EUR 1,100 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage for the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing.
B. Costs and expenses
27. The applicant also claimed EUR 900 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. To support his claim he submitted a copy of an agreement for legal assistance with his representative, a receipt from the latter for the amount of 38,700 Russian roubles allegedly equivalent at the time to EUR 900, and a legal bill for EUR 900.
28. The Government disagreed with the claim contending that the expenses claimed had not been necessary or reasonable as to quantum.
29. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 900 for the proceedings before the Court.
C. Default interest
30. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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 complaint concerning lack of notification of the appeal hearing admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 1,100 (one thousand and one hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 900 (nine hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 May 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André WampachChristos Rozakis Deputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy