THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41120/14
Eduard Nikolayevich CHISTYAKOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25 September 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 May 2014,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Eduard Nikolayevich Chistyakov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in St Petersburg. He was represented before the Court by Mr A.V. Shestakov, a lawyer practising in Kamyshin.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr M. Galperin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. The applicant is a former medical expert who has been convicted and then rehabilitated.
5. On 5 September 2012 the applicant applied to the first instance court seeking to recover arrears for pension. Both the prosecutor of the Volgograd region and the representative of the Ministry of Finance were parties to the case.
6. On 2 September 2013 the Kamyshinsk District Court granted the applicant’s claim and awarded 377,614 Russian roubles (RUB) as pension arrears and RUB 20,161 as costs and expenses. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 13 September 2013.
7. On 23 September 2013 the prosecutor requested the extension of the time‑limits for appeal.
8. On 1 October 2013 the Kamyshinsk District Court found that there were valid reasons for the extension of the time-limits since the judgment of 2 September 2013 had been sent to the prosecutor on 9 September and received by him on 13 September 2013.
9. On 4 October 2013 the representative of the Ministry of Finance lodged a request with the Kamyshinsk District Court seeking to extend the time-limits for an ordinary appeal.
10. On 8 October 2013 the Kamyshinsk District Court granted the Ministry’s request and extended the time-limits for an ordinary appeal. The court found that the judgment of 2 September 2013 had been sent to the representative only on 16 September 2013, that is after the judgment became final.
11. On 2 December 2013 the Volgograd Regional Court granted the appeals of the prosecutor of the Volgograd region and of the Ministry of Finance, quashed the judgment of 2 September 2013 and dismissed the applicant’s claims. The court found that the applicant had never applied for pension before his prosecution, at the moment of the prosecution he had not been entitled to pension. Thus the prosecution as such did not infringe his right to pension.
B. Relevant domestic law
12. The relevant domestic law governing the extension of the time limits for appeal is summed up in the Court’s decision in the case of Samoylenko v. Russia (dec.) (no. 58068/13, §§ 27-30, 30 March 2017).
THE LAW
13. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about unlawful extension of the time-limits for appeal and subsequent quashing of the final judgment in his favour by the regional court.
14. The Government submitted that unlike in other situations the prosecutor and the Ministry of Finance were parties of the proceedings before the domestic courts. They applied for the extension due to the late receipt of the judgment of 2 September 2013 and acted within a short period of time. As for the quashing, the applicant had never applied for pension before his conviction and thus could not have had any expectation had he not been prosecuted.
15. The Court reiterates that the existence of reasons capable of justifying a departure from the principle of legal certainty, even where they are established, is not in itself sufficient to conclude to the absence of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention. Another important factor should be taken into account, that is the time elapsed from the moment when the person requesting the extension of the time-limits became aware that a judgment was delivered against him. Since the extension of the time-limits for appeal constitutes an interference with the principle of res judicata, a person requesting such an extension should act with sufficient diligence, that is without delay from the moment when he became aware, or ought to have become aware, of the judgment subject to appeal (see Vorokov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 76648/12 and 9 others, § 36, 7 November 2017).
16. Turning to the circumstances of the present case the Court has no reasons to consider that the special procedure for extension of the time-limits for an ordinary appeal was used in the present case as an extraordinary appeal in disguise (contrast with Magomedov and Others v. Russia, nos. 33636/09 and 9 others, §§ 92-93, 28 March 2017). The extension request was lodged by the prosecutor and the Ministry of Finance, both parties to the proceedings, and motivated by the delay in receipt of a copy of the judgment delivered by the first-instance court. Further, both authorities acted with sufficient diligence because their extension requests were introduced shortly after they received the aforementioned copies (see paragraphs 8 and 10 above and contrast with Magomedov and Others, cited above, § 99).
17. It follows that this application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 18 October 2018.
Fatoş AracıAlena Poláčková
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy