European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF GROMOVOY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Applications nos. 59591/12 and 2 others -

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

9 November 2017

 

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.




In the case of Gromovoy and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Luis López Guerra, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 19 October 2017,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicants complained that they had been denied an opportunity to appear in person before the court in the civil proceedings to which they were parties. In application no. 59591/12, the applicant also raised a complaint under the Article 3 of the Convention.

THE LAW

I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  The applicants complained principally that their right to a fair hearing had been breached on account of the domestic courts’ refusal of their requests to appear in court. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

7.  The Court reiterates that the applicants, detainees at the time of the events, were not afforded an opportunity to attend hearings in civil proceedings to which they were parties. The details of those domestic proceedings are indicated in the appended table. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to present one’s case effectively before the court and to enjoy equality of arms with the opposing side, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, §§ 59-60, ECHR 2005-II). The Court’s analysis of an alleged violation of the right to a fair trial in respect of cases where incarcerated applicants complain about their absence from hearings in civil proceedings includes the following elements: examination of the manner in which domestic courts assessed the question whether the nature of the dispute required the applicants’ personal presence and determination whether domestic courts put in place any procedural arrangements aiming at guaranteeing their effective participation in the proceedings (see Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, § 48, 16 February 2016).

8.  In the leading case of Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, 16 February 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the domestic courts deprived the applicants of the opportunity to present their cases effectively and failed to meet their obligation to ensure respect for the principle of a fair trial.

10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

III.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION IN APPLICATION NO. 59591/12

11.  In application no. 59591/12 the applicant also complained under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of his detention in IVS in the town of Snezhinsk, Chelyabinsk Region, on multiple occasions during the period between October 2009 and July 2011. The complaint was communicated to the Russian Government.

12.  The Government submitted a declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by that complaint. They acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention on the occasions when the applicant had stayed in the mentioned detention facility. They offered to pay the applicant 4,250 euros and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay that amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

13.  The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

14.  The applicant informed the Court that he agreed to the terms of the declaration.

15.  The Court finds that, following the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.

16.  It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the application insofar as it concerns the complaint about the conditions of the applicant’s detention.

17.  In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of the application no. 59591/12 out of the list.

IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

18.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

19.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table for the violation of Article 6 of the Convention which it has found in the present cases.

20.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.  Decides to join the applications;

 

2.  Declares the applications admissible insofar as they concern the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention;

 

3.  Decides to strike the part of application no. 59591/12 out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention as regards the complaint concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;

 

4.  Holds that the applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the applicant’s absence from civil proceedings;

 

5.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 November 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

        Liv Tigerstedt                                                             Luis López Guerra

Acting Deputy Registrar                                                            President




APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(applicant’s absence from civil proceedings)

No.	Application no. Date of introduction	Applicant name Date of birth	Nature of the dispute Final decision	First-instance hearing date Court	Appeal hearing date Court	Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
1.	59591/12 03/10/2011	Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Gromovoy 11/10/1983	Compensation proceedings	20/01/2011   Snezhinsk City Court	04/04/2011   Chelyabinsk Regional Court	1,500
2.	33381/14 11/04/2014	Viktor Viktorovich Melnikov 23/07/1979	non-pecuniary damages for belated transfer from remand prison to the colony-settlement	14/12/2012   Tverskoy District Court of Moscow	10/10/2013   Moscow City Court	1,500
3.	55621/16 29/08/2016	Andrey Igorevich Resin 29/07/1974	Unfounded use of cuffs (final cassation appeal - Supreme Court of Russia - 30/05/2016	12/02/2015   Kirovskiy District Court of Khabarovsk	23/09/2015   Khabarovsk Regional Court   Final court judgment of 30/05/2016 by the Supreme Court of Russia, rejecting the applicant’s cassation appeal (Abramyan and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 38951/13 and 59611/13, 12/05/2015)	1,500

 




---

[1].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.