THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ORLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 36907/12 and 6 others - see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 April 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Orlov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Karen Reid, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 March 2017,
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 applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
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 that they had been denied an opportunity to appear in person before the court in the civil proceedings to which they were parties.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The Government submitted unilateral declarations in all applications, which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike these applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of their merits (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003‑VI and Rozhin v. Russia, no. 50098/07, §§ 23-25, 6 December 2011).
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
7. The applicants complained that their right to a fair hearing had been breached on account of the domestic courts’ refusal of their requests to appear in court. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
8. The Court reiterates that the applicants, detainees at the time of the events, were not afforded an opportunity to attend hearings in civil proceedings to which they were parties. The details of those domestic proceedings are indicated in the appended table. 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 its 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 leading case of Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, cited above, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
10. 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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case 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.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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.”
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
14. 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. Rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out of the list;
3. Declares the applications admissible;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the applicant’s absence from civil proceedings;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, 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 period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 April 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Karen ReidLuis López Guerra
RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(applicant’s absence from civil proceedings)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Nature of the dispute
Final decision
First-instance hearing date Court
Appeal hearing date Court
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant
(in euros)[1]
36907/12
10/12/2012
Sergey Aleksandrovich Orlov
17/06/1963
defamation dispute
23/01/2012
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Vladimir
30/08/2012
Vladimir Regional Court
1,500
40782/12
22/03/2012
German Nikolayevich Vyushkin
31/01/1976
non-pecuniary damages for bad conditions of detention
14/11/2011
Omutninskiy District Court of the Kirov Region
26/01/2012
Kirov Regional Court
1,500
42855/12
17/06/2012
Mikhail Alekseyevich Lunev
04/06/1984
non-pecuniary damages for unlawful criminal prosecution
15/09/2011
Belebey Town Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan
26/01/2012
Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan
1,500
42940/12
24/06/2012
Aleksey Ivanovich Bolsunovskiy
08/10/1982
employment dispute
29/02/2012
Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk
11/05/2012
Irkutsk Regional Court
1,500
43317/12
04/06/2012
Aleksandr Nikolayevich Tereshchenko
16/05/1976
non-pecuniary damages for bad conditions of detention
29/12/2011
Shahunskiy District Court of the Nizhny Novgorod Region
17/04/2012
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
1,500
68297/12
27/08/2012
Andrey Sergeyevich Matveyev
06/03/1978
non-pecuniary damages for bad conditions of detention
02/11/2011
Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg
14/06/2012
St Petersburg City Court
1,500
72157/12
01/10/2012
Dmitriy Vasilyevich Bazhan
08/01/1979
non-pecuniary damages for bad conditions of detention
12/04/2012
Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic
19/07/2012
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
1,500
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy