Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 85
April 2006
Fedotova v. Russia - 73225/01
Judgment 13.4.2006 [Section I]
Article 34
Hinder the exercise of the right of petition
Police inquiry into the payment of taxes by the applicant’s translator and representative before the Court in connection with her claim for just satisfaction: violation
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Tribunal established by law
Non-compliance with rules on participation of lay judges: violation
Facts: The town court, composed of a presiding judge and two lay judges, dismissed the applicant’s claims in a civil suit to which she was a party and ordered her to bear costs and expenses. The applicant appealed alleging, among other things, a breach of the requirements of the Lay Judges Act in that the sitting lay judges had not been drawn by lot and had exceeded their two weeks’ service per year. The regional court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the lay judges at issue were exempted from the requirements of the Federal Lay Judges Act.
On 1 April 2004 the European Court declared Ms Fedotova’s application partly admissible and she submitted her claim for just satisfaction. Shortly afterwards, an officer of the town police department questioned the applicant’s representative and translator in the Court proceedings about their relationship with the applicant and formally requested them to submit evidence that they had paid taxes on the amounts disbursed by the latter.
Law:Article 6(1) – The Court noted that the parties disagreed as to whether at the relevant time the status of lay judges in question had been governed by the USSR Judiciary Act of 1981 or by the more recent Federal Lay Judges Act. The Court observed that in either case essential requirements of the procedure for selection of lay judges had not been respected. The Court therefore concluded that the town court could not be considered a “tribunal established by law”.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
See also CLR No. 51, at p. 15 (Posokhov v. Russia, No. 63486/00, violation of Art. 6(1)).
Article 34 – The Court recalled that it was of the utmost importance for the effective operation of the system of individual petition instituted by Article 34 that applicants should be able to communicate freely with the Convention organs without being subjected to any form of pressure from the authorities to withdraw or modify their complaints. The expression “any form of pressure” must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy. In the instant case it was not in dispute that the local police had summoned the applicant’s legal representative and translator for a formal interview in connection with the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction. The Government had furnished no explanation as to how the regional police had obtained the documents submitted in the framework of the Convention proceedings. There was no doubt, however, that the inquiry had been launched at the request of the Government’s representative before the Court because the Government had relied on the findings of the police inquiry in their comments on the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
It was of particular concern that the police interview had not been confined to matters regarding the applicant’s translator’s tax reporting but had probed into more general aspects of her relationship with the applicant and other persons. Also, the Court saw no plausible reason as to why, in the absence of any apparent indication of a criminal offence, the questioning had been conducted by the regional police rather than by a competent tax authority.
In sum, to proceed as the Government had done in the case could very well have been interpreted by the applicant as an attempt to intimidate her. The fact that the summons had been served on the applicant’s legal representative and translator made no difference. The moves made by the Russian Government to investigate the applicant’s disbursements to her representatives, even though apparently not resulting in any criminal prosecution, had to be considered an interference with the exercise of the applicant’s right of individual petition and incompatible with the respondent State’s obligation under Article 34 of the Convention.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy