THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32520/07
Oleg Vsevolodovich ZLOTNIKOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3 December 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 July 2007,
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 Oleg Vsevolodovich Zlotnikov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Rudnya.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr A. Fedorov, former acting Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by Mr M. Galperin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. In 2005 the police charged the applicant with disorderly conduct because he had threatened his ex-partner’s parents with a gun. According to a psychiatric report of 21 June 2005, the applicant suffered from chronic schizophrenia and could not understand or control his actions at the time of the events. The report also stated that he was unfit to stand trial or plead.
5. On 1 March 2006 the Velizhskiy District Court of the Smolensk Region established the facts and heard the witnesses. The applicant was absent from the trial proceedings due to the state of his mental health, but his representative took part in the hearing. The trial court, having regard to the expert’s conclusions, relieved him of criminal liability and ordered treatment in a psychiatric facility.
6. The applicant appealed against the judgment but on 23 January 2007 the Smolensk Regional Court dismissed the appeal. Neither the applicant, nor his representative attended the hearing.
7. On 21 December 2016 the Presidium of the Regional Court annulled the prior appeal judgment due to violation of the applicant’s right to be represented during the appeal hearing and ordered reconsideration.
8. On 8 February 2017 the Regional Court reconsidered the applicant’s appeal and dismissed it. The applicant, who was duly notified of the hearing, chose not to appear. He was represented during the hearing by his lawyer.
COMPLAINTS
9. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about his and his lawyer’s absence during the appeal hearing.
THE LAW
10. The Government submitted that in the view of reconsideration of the applicant’s appeals in 2017 he could no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violation. The applicant disagreed.
11. The Court reiterates that it falls, firstly, to the national authorities to redress any violation of the Convention; in this regard, the question whether an applicant can claim to be the victim of the violation alleged is relevant at all stages of the proceedings under the Convention; a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not, in principle, sufficient to deprive him or her of his or her status as a “victim” for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 115, ECHR 2010).
12. In the present case, the Court is satisfied that the Presidium of the Regional Court expressly acknowledged a breach of the applicant’s rights in the appeal hearing of 23 January 2007 and ordered reconsideration of his appeals. The applicant was duly notified of the repeated hearing on 8 February 2017. The applicant’s representative took part in that hearing and was able to present the position of the defence. While it is true that no monetary redress directly ensued, the Court notes that the applicant did not make any such claim before the domestic authorities. The applicant’s mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a claim are not sufficient to defy the Government’s argument about the loss of victim status (see Vučković and Others v. Serbia [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, § 74, 25 March 2014).
13. It follows that the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of his Convention rights and this application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 16 January 2020.
Stephen PhillipsAlena Poláčková
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy