Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 104
January 2008
Ryakib Biryukov v. Russia - 14810/02
Judgment 17.1.2008 [Section I]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Public judgment
Failure to state reasons for civil judgment in public: violation
Facts: The applicant brought a civil action against a hospital for alleged medical negligence. His case was examined on the merits by a district court, acting as a first-instance court, at a public hearing. At the close of the hearing the court read out the operative provisions of the judgment, in which it stated that it was dismissing the applicant’s claims on the basis of Article 1064 of the Civil Code. The reasoned judgment was served on the applicant later. In dismissing the applicant’s appeal against that judgment, the regional court likewise read out only the operative provisions of its judgment in open court.
Law: The issue before the Court was whether, in civil proceedings, the requirement to pronounce judgments publicly was satisfied by the reading out in open court solely of the operative provisions of the judgment. This in turn entailed examining whether the public had access to the reasoned judgment and to the arrangements made to ensure its availability for public scrutiny. Under domestic law, only the parties and other participants in the proceedings and their representatives were served with a copy of the reasoned judgment or could gain access to it at the court registry. It followed that the reasons on which the district court had based its judgment on the merits were, apart from the reference made in the operative provisions to Article 1064 of the Civil Code, inaccessible to the public. Article 1064 merely established general grounds giving rise to liability for the infliction of harm and the operative provision contained no indication as to the underlying principle that had been applied and so was not informative to the layman. Accordingly, the reasons which would have made it possible to understand why the applicant’s claims had been rejected were inaccessible to the public.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – Finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage.
© 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