THIRD SECTION
CASE OF RUMYANTSEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 40913/14 and 4 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 June 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Rumyantsev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 May 2018,
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 SOME APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The Government submitted unilateral declarations in applications nos. 40913/14 and 68723/14 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 cases (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003‑VI, and Igranov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42399/13 and 8 others, §§ 25-27, 20 March 2018).
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, nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, 16 February 2016, 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, as well as the Government’s objection related to the calculation of the six-month time-limit, 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, and in particular that which regulates the application of the six-month time-limit to cases of belated service of a final judgment on applicants (see Igranov and Others, cited above, §§ 29-30, with further references), the Court dismisses the Government’s objection to that effect and 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 applications nos. 40913/14 and 68723/14 out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declarations which they submitted;
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 14 June 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy 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
(date of receipt of the final judgment,
if relevant)
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
40913/14
04/05/2014
Ivan Aleksandrovich Rumyantsev
13/01/1979
compensation in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings
30/05/2013
Moscow Regional Court
29/01/2014
Moscow Regional Court
1,500
49808/14
18/06/2014
Sergey Vladimirovich Yermolayev
23/04/1981
non-pecuniary damages for delay in responding to the applicant’s request to open criminal inquiry
16/11/2012
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow
14/10/2013
Moscow City Court
(a copy of the judgment dispatched to the applicant on 26/05/2014 and received by the applicant on 06/06/2014)
1,500
68723/14
08/10/2014
Maksim Aleksandrovich Borodin
13/06/1984
employment dispute and reinstatement at work
24/02/2014
Frunzenskiy District court of Vladivostok
14/07/2014
Primorye Regional Court
1,500
76865/14
14/11/2014
Ilya Yuryevich Tikhomirov
26/07/1986
non-pecuniary damages for bad conditions of detention
11/01/2013
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow
08/10/2013
Moscow City Court
(a copy of the judgment delivered to the colony officials on 14/05/2014 and served on the applicant some time later)
1,500
17708/15
04/04/2015
Andrey Vladimirovich Novikov
17/01/1979
Reinstatement at work, payment of outstanding salary;
final decision of 17/02/2015 by the Moscow City Court, acting by way of cassation review
17/02/2014
Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow
02/10/2014
Moscow City Court
(the applicant received a copy of the judgment on 22/12/2014)
1,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy