FIRST SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 9941/03
by Antonina ROLGEZER and Others
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11 April 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrS.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 February 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Antonina Fedorovna Rolgezer and 28 others listed in the schedule, are Russian nationals, who live in the village of Naumovka in the Tomsk region.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants live in the vicinity of a radiochemical plant of the Siberian Chemical Industrial Complex (hereinafter “the plant”). They regularly undergo health checks.
On an unspecified date in July 1997 the applicants sued the plant for compensation for the damage to their health caused by its activity. They also sought an injunction banning the burial ground disposal of nuclear waste.
On 15 July 2002 the Seversk Town Court of the Tomsk Region dismissed their claims as unsubstantiated. The applicants were present at the public hearing.
On 5 November 2002 the Tomsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complained under Article 6 about the excessive length of the proceedings.
2. The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about erroneous assessment of evidence and incorrect application of the law by the domestic courts, and unjust outcome of the proceedings.
3. The applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention that they and their children were required to submit to health checks against their will.
THE LAW
1. The applicants alleged a violation of Article 6 on account of the unreasonable length of the civil proceedings. The relevant parts of Article 6 read as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this part of the complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of it to the respondent Government.
2. The applicants complained Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the findings of the domestic courts. Article 6 provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
Article 13 provides:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
(a) Insofar as the applicants alleged a violation of Article 6 on account of incorrect assessment of evidence, application of the domestic law and the unfavourable result of the proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, e.g., Čekić and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 15085/02, 9 October 2003). Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999‑I).
Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court finds that there is nothing to indicate that the domestic courts’ evaluation of the facts and evidence presented in the applicants’ case was contrary to Article 6 of the Convention. The applicants were fully able to present their case and challenge the evidence of the other party, public hearings were held and the courts’ decisions were amply reasoned. Having regard to the facts, as submitted, the Court has not found any reason to believe that the proceedings did not comply with the fairness requirement of Article 6 of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
(b) Insofar as the applicants relied on Article 13 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 provides more rigorous procedural guarantees than Article 13 and, therefore, operates as a lex specialis in respect of Article 13 (see Philis v. Greece, no. 23202/94, Commission decision of 5 March 1996; Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain, judgment of 19 December 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑VIII, § 41).
Thus, the Court considers that, having regard to its findings relating to Article 6 § 1, it is unnecessary to examine the application from the standpoint of Article 13 of the Convention since the requirements of the latter provision are less strict and are here absorbed by those of Article 6 § 1 (see Markkula v. Finland, no. 27866/95, Commission decision of 3 December 1997).
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
3. The applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention about health checks.
The Court notes that the applicants never complained about this matter to any domestic authority and therefore did not afford the State an opportunity to examine the alleged breaches of their right to respect for their private life and, if appropriate, to offer redress.
It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaint concerning the excessive length of the civil proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
SCHEDULE
List of applicants
No.
Name
Year of birth
Ms Antonina Fedorovna Rolgezer
1953
Ms Galina Vasilyevna Bakakina
1940
Mr Igor Vasilyevich Bakakin
1978
Mr Grigoriy Yuryevich Grigoryev
1982
Ms Irina Yuryevna Lisimenko
1979
Ms Yelena Aleksandrovna Degtyareva
1982
Mr Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Zibayev
1981
Mr Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Zibayev
1980
Ms Valentina Fedorovna Klimacheva
1934
Mr Aleksandr Ivanovich Konstantinov
1981
Ms Tatyana Ivanovna Konstantinova
1983
Ms Nadezhda Alekseyevna Kuzmina
1967
Mr Sergey Iosifovich Rolgezer
1984
Mr Dmitriy Pavlovich Savelyev
1977
Ms Tatyana Pavlovna Savelyeva
1982
Ms Tamara Ilyinichna Savelyeva
1932
Ms Lyudmila Ilyinichna Semakova
1954
Ms Tatyana Insafetdinovna Staseeva
1979
Ms Yelena Insafetdinovna Khaliulina
1978
Ms Irina Alekseevna Pishchulina
1960
Mr Vasiliy Dmitriyevich Pishchulin
1959
Ms Raisa Moiseevna Tryasugina
1938
Mr Aleksandr Alekseyevich Zibayev
1953
Ms Nadezhda Dmitrievna Savelyeva
1954
Ms Nadezhda Ivanovna Zibayeva
1949
Ms Svetlana Yakimovna Grigoryeva
1960
Ms Lyudmila Vasilyevna Khaliulina
1957
Ms Mariya Aleksandrovna Konstantinova
1958
Ms Olga Fedorovna Degtyareva
1961
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy