THIRD SECTION
CASE OF POBEREZHYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 11127/08 and 7 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 Poberezhyev 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. 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:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
7. 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).
8. In the leading case of Yevdokimov and Others, cited above, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. 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.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. 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.”
12. 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.
13. 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 the applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the applicant’s absence from civil proceedings;
4. 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]
11127/08
30/01/2008
Aleksandr Vadimovich Poberezhyev
06/09/1974
non-pecuniary damages for poor conditions of detention
18/07/2007
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow
13/12/2007
Moscow City Court
1,500
4100/11
15/12/2010
Vladimir Vladimirovich Bulatov
27/03/1974
non-pecuniary damages for solitary confinement
08/06/2011
Ulyanovskiy District Court of the Ulyanovsk region
20/09/2011
Ulyanovsk regional Court
1,500
8795/11
12/01/2011
Andrey Valeryevich Skryabin
05/05/1978
non-pecuniary damages for poor conditions of detention
04/08/2010
Slobodskiy District Court of the Kirov Region
25/11/2010
Kirov Regional Court
1,500
25158/11
16/03/2011
Mikhail Viktorovich Isakov
01/01/1985
non-pecuniary damages for conditions of detention and detention with an inmate suffering from tuberculosis
04/05/2011
Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic
24/11/2011
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
1,500
27653/11
03/04/2011
Sergey Andreyevich Konstantinov
07/05/1987
post-conviction compensation claim introduced by the victims
04/06/2010
Sergiyev Posad Town Court of the Moscow Region
19/10/2010
Moscow Regional Court
1,500
12247/12
15/03/2010
Sergey Nikolayevich Andrianov
13/11/1979
non-pecuniary damages for poor conditions of detention
26/02/2009
Serpukhov Town Court of the Moscow Region
22/09/2009
Moscow Regional Court
1,500
31488/12
26/04/2012
Nikolay Nikolayevich Kokora
06/09/1965
non-pecuniary damages for poor conditions of detention
12/10/2011
Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd
25/01/2012
Volgograd Regional Court
1,500
32000/12
17/04/2012
Vladimir Vladimirovich Sidoruk
24/06/1965
tort claim for damages (both pecuniary and non‑pecuniary)
20/06/2011
Troitskiy District Court of the Chelyabinsk Region
10/10/2011
Chelyabinsk Regional Court
1,500
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy