Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)413
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Six cases against the Russian Federation
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 7 December 2017 at the 1302nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
Application No.
Case
Judgment of
Final on
54632/00
ZHUKOV STANISLAV
12/10/2006
12/01/2007
66041/01
ALDOSHKINA
12/10/2006
12/01/2007
74266/01
ALEKSEYENKO
08/01/2009
06/07/2009
63997/00
FEDOROV
26/02/2009
26/05/2009
11994/03
SABAYEV
08/04/2010
08/07/2010
8927/02
SHAROMOV
15/01/2009
15/04/2009
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),
Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the violations established;
Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:
- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;
Having examined the information provided by the government indicating the measures adopted to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see Appendix);
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)413
Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the Stanislav Zhukov group of cases against the Russian Federation
Case summary
This group of six cases concerns the failure between 1999 and 2002 to summon the defence to supervisory-review hearings (“nadzor”, an extraordinary remedy) in criminal cases, in violation of the principle of equality of arms (Article 6 § 1 alone or in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c)),.
I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Name and application number
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
Paid on
Stanislav Zhukov
(No. 54632/00)
-
-
-
-
-
Aldoshkina (No. 66041/01)
-
EUR 1,000
-
EUR 1,000
15/03/2007
Alekseyenko
(No. 74266/01)
-
EUR 3,000
-
EUR 3,000
09/10/2009
Fedorov (No. 63997/00)
-
EUR 1,000
EUR 1,600
EUR 2,600
04/09/2009
Sabayev (No. 11994/03)
-
EUR 3,000
-
EUR 3,000
22/10/2009
Sharomov (No. 8927/02)
-
-
-
-
-
b) Other individual measures
In the Sharomov and Alekseyenko cases, the “nadzor” hearings were held de novo and the applicants’ counsels participated in them. In the Fedorov case, the applicant did not request a reopening of the domestic proceedings. In the other cases, the applicants had a possibility to obtain a reopening but did not complain about the process of execution of the judgments in their favour of the European Court.
II. General measures
The source of the violation was that, according to the legislation in force before July 2002, a convicted person and his or her counsel were summoned to a supervisory review hearing only if the court found it necessary (Article 377 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960) (see, for example, Alekseyenko, § 47; Sabayev, § 23).
On 14 February 2000 the Constitutional Court ruled that Article 377 § 3 of the Code was unconstitutional insofar as it allowed supervisory review proceedings to be conducted in the absence of the defence if it could result in the worsening of the convicted person’s situation. Since then, the legislation has been reformed and now provides for the participation of the defence. Thus, according to the legislation in force between July 2002 and March 2009, the defence should be notified of the date, time and place of the supervisory review hearings and should be allowed to participate in them, provided that it has made a specific request to that effect (Article 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 2001 which entered into force on 1 July 2002 - (see Alekseyenko, § 48; Sabayev, § 24). In March 2009, Article 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure introduced a direct right of the defence to be present at the supervisory review hearing. In December 2010, it was replaced with the current Article 412.10 § 3 of that Code, providing for the same right.
The judgments of the European Court have been disseminated among the competent authorities, translated and published.
Against this background, no further general measures are necessary.
III.Conclusions of the respondent State
The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases and that these measures will prevent similar violations. The Russian Federation has, therefore, complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy