THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 2746/07
Sergey Ivanovich PROKOPENKO and Others against Russia
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2 May 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by Mr A. Fedorov, Head of the Office of the Representative of the Russian Federation to the Court.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
All the applicants were parties to civil proceedings in which the first‑instance courts granted their claims against the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency (“the Ministry”). These judgments became final but were subsequently quashed by the supervisory review courts upon the appeals of the Ministry on the grounds of incorrect application of substantive or procedural law (for more details see the Appendix).
On 29 January and 5 February 2007 the applicants lodged appeals before the Altay Regional Court to reopen the proceedings on the grounds of newly discovered circumstances.
On 10 April 2007 the Altay Regional Court granted the applicants’ claims, quashed the judgments of supervisory review courts and dismissed the claims of the Ministry.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure in force between 1 February 2003 and 7 January 2008 is summed up in the Court’s judgment in the case of Kot v. Russia (no. 20887/03, § 17, 18 January 2007).
COMPLAINTS
All the applicants complain about a violation of the principle of legal certainty on account of the quashing by way of supervisory review of binding and enforceable judgments in their favour. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention.
THE LAW
A. Joinder of the applications
In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of the Court, the Court decides to consider the applications in a single decision, given their similar factual and legal background (see Kazakevich and 9 other “Army Pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 14290/03 and 9 others, § 15, 14 January 2010).
B. Locus standi as regards Ms Kuznetsova (application no. 2746/07)
On 6 October 2016 Mr Prokopenko and Ms Ishchenko informed the Court that Ms Kuznetsova had passed away and they were not aware of any relative wishing to pursue the application on her behalf.
In these circumstances the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the Ms Kuznetsova’s complaints and concludes, under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, that this part of the application should be struck out of its list of cases.
C. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
The Government submitted that after the quashing of the final judgments in the applicants’ favour they applied for the reopening of the proceedings on the grounds of newly discovered circumstances. The courts found for the applicants and dismissed the appeal lodged by the Ministry. It thus follows that the applicants are no longer a victim.
The applicants maintained their claims.
The Court notes that the applicant’s reliance on binding judgments of 10 October and 19 December 2006 could have been frustrated by the very fact of their quashing. However the Court has established above that on 10 April 2007 the disputed supervisory-instance rulings were set aside by the Altay Regional Court pursuant to the applicants’ own request. The effect of the proceedings which formed the basis for the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 has thus been annulled (see, mutatis mutandis, Babunidze v. Russia (dec.), no. 3040/03, 15 May 2007). The Altay Regional Court acknowledged a violation of the applicants’ rights and, as a result, dismissed the claims of the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency. The new judgment was in favour of the applicants in so far as their right to social benefits was restored. The Court thus considers that such a redress was sufficient and adequate, having the effect of rendering the applicant “no longer a victim” of the alleged violation (see, mutatis mutandis, Babunidze, cited above, and most recent Lyakhevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 26704/02, 12 November 2013).
It follows that this part of the complaint must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the application no. 2746/07, in part of Ms Kuznetsova, out of its list of cases;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the applications.
Done in English and notified in writing on 24 May 2017.
Fatoş AracıLuis López Guerra
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Final domestic judgment
a) date of delivery
b) date of becoming final
Quashing
2746/07
13/11/2006
Sergey Ivanovich PROKOPENKO
27/01/1960
Uglovskoye
Yevgeniya Ivanovna KUZNETSOVA
20/07/1946
Borisovka
Olga Nikolayevna ISHCHENKO
18/04/1957
Laptev Log
Uglovskiy District Court of Altay
06/12/2005
17/12/2005
Presidium of the Altay Regional Court
10/10/2006
2771/07
07/11/2006
Bagdagul Toleubekovna AKPAYEVA
25/07/1961
Pervomayskiy
Uglovskiy District Court of Altay
06/12/2005
17/12/2005
Presidium of the Altay Regional Court
10/10/2006
7815/08
24/01/2007
Boris Nikolayevich PISKUNOV
08/09/1956
Uglovskoye
Uglovskiy District Court of Altay
10/10/2005
20/10/2005
Presidium of the Altay Regional Court
19/12/2006
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy