THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KUZMIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 12100/05, 5744/07 and 28425/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 June 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kuzmin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Helena Jäderblom, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 May 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in three applications (nos. 12100/05, 5744/07 and 28425/07) 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 four Russian nationals. The applicants’ names and the dates of their applications to the Court appear in the Appendix.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicants complained, inter alia, of the quashing of final judgments by way of supervisory review between 2003 and 2008.
4. On 18 March 2008, 4 July 2012 and 17 March 2008 respectively, these complaints were communicated to the respondent Government.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. All the applicants were parties to civil proceedings in which the first‑instance and appeal courts found in their favour. These judgments became binding and enforceable but were subsequently quashed by the supervisory review courts on the grounds of incorrect application of substantive law or incorrect assessment of evidence by lower courts (for more details see the Appendix).
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
6. The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure in force between 1 February 2003 and 7 January 2008 is summarised in Kot v. Russia (no. 20887/03, § 17, 18 January 2007).
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
7. Given that these three applications concern similar facts and complaints and raise almost identical issues under the Convention, the Court will consider them in a single judgment (see Kazakevich and 9 other “Army Pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 14290/03, 19089/04, 42059/04, 27800/04, 43505/04, 43538/04, 3614/05, 30906/05, 39901/05 and 524/06, § 15, 14 January 2010).
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING OF THE JUDGMENTS IN THE APPLICANTS’ FAVOUR
8. All the applicants complained about the quashing by way of supervisory review of final judgments in their favour. They invoked Article 6 of the Convention, which relevant part reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
A. Admissibility
9. The Court notes that those complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
10. The Government argued that the supervisory review proceedings resulting in the quashing of the judgments at issue had been lawful: they had been initiated by the defendant authorities within the time-limits provided by domestic law. The supervisory review courts had quashed lower courts’ judgments that had been based on an incorrect application of the substantive law, thus correcting flagrant injustices and eliminating dangerous precedents.
11. The applicants reiterated their complaints.
12. The Court observes that it has already found numerous violations of the Convention on account of the quashing of final judgments by way of supervisory review procedure, as in force at the material time (see Kot, cited above, § 29). There is no reason to depart from that finding in the present case.
13. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF THE ACCESS TO COURT
14. In the case of Kuzmin the applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention about an alleged violation of his right to a court on account of the domestic courts’ refusals to examine his claim.
15. The Government submitted that the applicant’s claim had been granted on 27 March 2007. His complaint thus should be declared inadmissible.
16. The Court observes that on 27 March 2007 the applicant’s claim had eventually been examined and partially granted. It thus agrees with the Government’s submissions (see Kharitonov v. Russia, no. 39898/03, § 19, 16 July 2009, and, by way of contrast, Bezymyannaya v. Russia, no. 21851/03, § 33, 22 December 2009).
17. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
18. Lastly, all the applicants in addition complained under Articles 1, 6, 13, 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of other violations, such as length of proceedings, lack of an effective domestic remedy against the quashing by way of supervisory review of final domestic judgments in their favour and the outcome of the proceedings.
19. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that they are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
V. 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. All the applicants claimed pecuniary damage ranging from 6,987 euros (EUR) to EUR 150,000. Mr Prokopyev further claimed EUR 22,020 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
22. The Government considered their claims as being excessive and unreasonable.
23. As regards pecuniary damage, the Court discerns no causal link between the violation of Article 6 of the Convention found in the applicants’ cases and their claims for pecuniary damage (see Chernitsyn v. Russia, no. 5964/02, § 39, 6 April 2006). It consequently rejects them. As regards non-pecuniary damage, the Court notes that no claims under this head were lodged by Mr Kuzmin, Mr Kostenko and Mr Kasmylin. No awards should thus be made in their respect. The situation is different in Mr Prokopyev’s case in which the applicant submitted such claim. Having regard to the principles developed in its case-law on the determination of compensation in similar cases and making its assessment on equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards him EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see lastly Gruzda v. Russia [Committee], no. 63833/09, § 23, 5 April 2016).
B. Costs and expenses
24. In the cases of Kuzmin and Prokopyev the applicants claimed EUR 5,000 and EUR 3,000 respectively for costs and expenses.
25. The Government contested the amounts claimed as being excessive and/or unsubstantiated.
26. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award, in the cases of Kuzmin, and Prokopyev, each applicant EUR 300 (see, for a similar approach, Ryabov and 151 other “Privileged pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 4563/07 and 151 others, §§ 20-23, 17 December 2009).
C. Default interest
27. 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, in respect of all the applications, the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the quashing by way of supervisory review of final domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in all cases on account of the quashing by way of supervisory review of the judgments in the applicants’ favour;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable:
(i) to Mr Prokopyev EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) to each applicant in the Kuzmin and Prokopyev cases EUR 300 (three hundred euros), 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;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 June 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen PhillipsHelena Jäderblom
RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application no. and date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Place of residence
Nationality
Represented by
Final domestic judgment
a) date of delivery
b) date of becoming final
Defendant
Quashing
12100/05
16/03/2005
Aleksandr Vladimirovich KUZMIN
22/12/1953
Johvi
Russian
Dmitrov Town Court
09/04/2004
20/04/2004
Private party
Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court
27/10/2004
5744/07
11/11/2006
Valeriy Georgiyevich KOSTENKO
30/12/1954
Tuapse
Russian
Sergey Vladimirovich KASMYLIN
12/07/1960
Tuapse
Russian
Tuapsinskiy Town Court
16/09/2005
17/11/2005
Private party
Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court
11/05/2006
28425/07
01/06/2007
Pavel Stanislavovich PROKOPYEV
07/03/1976
Novosibirsk
Russian
Vladimir Viktorovich PORUCHAYEV
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Novosibirsk
14/06/2006
24/06/2006
Local branch of the Traffic Police
Presidium of the Novosibirsk Regional Court
02/03/2007
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy