European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF USPANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 48053/06 and 7 others)

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT
(Revision)

 

 

STRASBOURG

11 January 2022

 

 

 

 

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

 

In the case of Uspanov and Others v. Russia (request for revision of the judgment of 9 February 2021),

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

          Darian Pavli, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 7 December 2021,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in eight applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by thirteen Russian nationals (“the applicants”). Their names and other details, as well as dates of lodging of each application, are specified in the judgment delivered on 9 February 2021.

2.  In that judgment, the Court held, among other things, that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ ill-treatment and the lack of effective investigation, and of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the use of confessions obtained under duress in the applicants’ respective convictions. The Court also decided to award each of the applicants in application no. 21123/09 (Vitrigov and Others v. Russia) 67,600 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 3,000 jointly for costs and expenses, to be paid directly to the applicants’ representative, and dismissed the remainder of their claims for just satisfaction.

3.  On 5 March 2021 the applicants’ representative in application no. 21123/09 informed the Court that he had learned that one of the applicants, Mr Ayub Tuntuyev, had died on 12 March 2019, and that his wife, Ms Khedi Rasuyeva, wished to pursue the application. He accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.

4.  On 30 March 2021 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the Government three weeks in which to submit any observations. Those observations were received on 26 May 2021.

THE LAW

THE REQUEST FOR REVISION

5.  The applicants’ representative requested revision of the judgment of 9 February 2021, which he had been unable to have executed because Mr Ayub Tuntuyev had died before the judgment had been adopted. Ms Khedi Rasuyeva was the heir and should therefore receive the sum awarded to the deceased.

6.  The Government stated that the applicant Mr Ayub Tuntuyev died on 12 March 2019, which is about two years before the judgment date, but neither the applicant’s representative nor his heir had informed the Court in this regard. The applicants failed to cooperate fully with the Court.

7.  Referring to its previously examined requests for revision (see Cangöz and Others v. Turkey (revision), no. 7469/06, § 9, 19 September 2017; M. Özel and Others v. Turkey (revision), nos. 14350/05 and 2 others, § 8, 31 March 2020; and Volchkova and Mironov v. Russia (revision), nos. 45668/05 and 2292/06, 9 March 2021), the Court finds no particular circumstances in the instant case which would require it to depart from its findings in those cases. It finds it unnecessary to draw any inferences from the failure to inform the Court at an earlier stage about the demise of the applicant.

8.  The Court notes from the documents that Ms Khedi Rasuyeva is the wife of the late applicant, Mr Ayub Tuntuyev.

9.  In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that Ms Khedi Rasuyeva has standing to receive the sum awarded in the judgment in her husband’s stead. She has expressed her intention to do so and requested that the judgment be revised.

10.  The Court considers that the judgment of 9 February 2021 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, the relevant parts of which provide:

“A party may, in the event of the discovery of a fact which might by its nature have a decisive influence and which, when a judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court and could not reasonably have been known to that party, request the Court ... to revise that judgment.

...”

11.  It accordingly decides to award Ms Khedi Rasuyeva the amount it previously awarded to the deceased applicant Mr Ayub Tuntuyev, namely EUR 67,600 (sixty-seven thousand six hundred euros) for non-pecuniary damage.

12.  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 revise its judgment Uspanov and Others v. Russia of 9 February 2021 as regards application Vitrigov and Others v. Russia (no. 21123/09) in so far as it concerns the application of Article 41 of the Convention;

2.      Holds, accordingly

(a)    that the respondent State is to pay to Mr Ayub Tuntuyev’s heir, Ms Khedi Rasuyeva, within three months, EUR 67,600 (sixty-seven thousand six hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 11 January 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

                       

          Olga Chernishova                                                   Darian Pavli
          Deputy Registrar                                                      President