European Court of Human Rights

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KOVALEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 53594/12 and 3 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

20 May 2021

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

In the case of Kovalev and Others v. Russia,

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

          Darian Pavli, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 22 April 2021,

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 Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3.  The list of the 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. Mr Kovalev (application no. 53594/12) also raised a complaint under Article 8 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 that their right to a fair hearing had been breached on account of the domestic courts’ failure to ensure their effective participation in the civil proceedings. 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 notes 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 reiterates 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 said Convention provision in respect of cases where incarcerated applicants complain about their absence from hearings in civil proceedings includes the following elements: (1) examination of the manner in which domestic courts assessed the question whether the nature of the dispute required the applicants’ personal presence and (2) 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 Yevdokimov and Others, cited above, the Court has found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in view of the domestic courts’ failure to consider whether the applicants’ attendance was essential in order to ensure the overall fairness of the civil proceedings they were parties to.

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 (i) by failing to properly assess the nature of the civil claims brought by the applicants with a view to deciding whether their presence was indispensable and by focussing instead on deficiencies in the domestic law which does not provide for civil parties’ mandatory presence in court, and (ii) by failing to consider appropriate procedural arrangements enabling the applicants to be heard, 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 “fair trial” guarantee enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention.

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

III.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

11.  In application no. 53594/12 the applicant also complained under Article 8 of the Convention about the restrictions imposed on his right to family visits during his detention in remand prison no. IZ-42/1 in Kemerovo.

12.  The Court has examined the complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, it does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13.  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.”

14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, among other authorities, Igranov and Others v. Russia, nos.  42933/13 and 8 others, § 40, 20 March 2018), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

15.  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 complaints concerning the applicants’ absence from civil proceedings admissible, and the remainder of application no. 53594/12 inadmissible;

3.      Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the applicants’ absence from civil proceedings;

4.      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 during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 May 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

                                                                                              {signature_p_2}

Viktoriya Maradudina                                                            Darian Pavli

Acting Deputy Registrar                                                            President

APPENDIX

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

(applicant’s absence from civil proceedings)