Resolution CM/ResDH(2018)339
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Zagorodnikov against Russian Federation
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 September 2018
at the 1324th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
Application No.
Case
Judgment of
Final on
66941/01
ZAGORODNIKOV
07/06/2007
07/09/2007
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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in this case and to the violation 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 judgment, 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 this case and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
Appendix
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment
in the case of Zagorodnikov against Russian Federation
Case summary
This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a public hearing as public access to the hearings held by the Moscow Commercial Court in 2000 on the issue of ratification of a settlement between a bank and its creditors had been restricted (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).
I.Payment of just satisfaction and other individual measures
a)Payment of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
Paid on
-
1,000 EUR
500 EUR
1,500 EUR
01/11/2007
b)Other individual measures
After the judgment became final, the applicant requested the reopening of the proceedings. On 8 October 2007 the Commercial Court of Moscow rejected his request. However, the reopening of the proceedings is not a required individual measure in this case, as the violation found by the Court was of a purely procedural nature that could not have affected the outcome of the proceedings. In addition, a reopening of the case would have led to a breach of the principle of res judicata in a civil case which concerned thousands of other people. Therefore, no other individual measure is required.
II.General measures
a)Legislative measures
The European Court noted in its judgment that Article 9 of the Code of Commercial Procedure, in force at the material time, already required the court hearings to be public. The new Code of Commercial Procedure, which entered into force in 2002, that is after the events at issue, contains a similar provision (Article 11). Moreover, on 1 July 2010, a special Law on Access to Information on Activities of the Courts in the Russian Federation (No. 262-ФЗ),entered into force, specifically providing for, inter alia, the right to be present at a hearing (Article 12).
b)Measures taken by the Supreme Commercial Court
On 6 August 2007 the Supreme Commercial Court issued Order No. 104 providing, inter alia, for:
- the creation of special places in courtrooms for the public;
- free access to court premises by any person wishing to attend the hearings;
- free access of the press to court premises;
- the adoption of relevant instructions by each commercial court;
- the obligation of the presidents of the commercial courts to inform general public about the rules on attending court hearings.
c) Publication and dissemination
The judgment of the European Court has been translated, published and widely disseminated.
III.Conclusions of the respondent State
The government considers that no individual measure is required in this case, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction and that the general measures adopted 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