Lexploria

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF IVANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application s no s . 44363/14 and 2 others -

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

4 June 2020

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

In the case of Ivanov and Others v. Russia ,

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

Alena Poláčková , President, Dmitry Dedov , Gilberto Felici , judges, and Liv Tigerstedt , Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 14 May 2020 ,

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 applicant s and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4 . The applicant s complained that they had been denied an opportunity to appear in person before the court in the civil proceeding s to which they were parties .

THE LAW

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

6 . The applicant s complained 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 applicant s , detainee s 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 case s where incarcerated applicant s 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 applicant s ’ 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 (cited above) , 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. It rejects the Government ’ s objection in application no. 36040/17 concerning the applicant ’ s alleged failure to comply with the six-month requirement, as the applicant lodged his application to the Court on 28 April 2017, that is within six months after the final judgment of the Supreme Court of Russia of 15 December 2016. Thus, having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the domestic courts deprived the applicant s of the opportunity to present their case s 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.

11 . 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.”

12 . Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Igranov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42933/13 and 8 others, § 40, 20 March 2018), as well to the previous awards the Court has made, in particular in application no. 39315/16 to the applicant Mr Resin (see, for instance, Resin v. Russia , no. 9348/14, § 50, 18 December 2018; Yevdokimov and Others , cited above, § 58; Igranov and Others , cited above, § 40; Resin and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 30428/14 and 8 others, § 15 and appended table, 30 November 2017; and Gromovoy and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 59591/12 and 2 others, § 20 and appended table, 9 November 2017), the Court considers it reasonable not to make any award to Mr Resin and to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the two remaining applicants. While taking this decision, the Court reiterates its findings made in the cases of Yevdokimov and Others (cited above) and Igranov and Others (cited above) concerning the adoption of general measures by the respondent State to eliminate the deficiency of the Russian legal system which makes no provision for detainees ’ participation in civil proceedings.

13 . 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,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant s , 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 4 June 2020 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková

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 ’ s name

Date of birth

Representative ’ s name and location

Nature of the dispute

Final decision

First-instance hearing date

Court

Appeal hearing date

Court

Final decision date

Court

Amount awarded for non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]

44363/14

01/09/2014

Viktor Vasilyevich IVANOV

19/05/1958

Compensation for the alleged lack of medical assistance in remand prison

14/01/2014

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk

07/05/2014

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

07/05/2014

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

1,500

39315/16

21/06/2016

Andrey Igorevich RESIN

29/07/1974

Gaynutdinova Yuliya Sergeyevna

Kazan

Civil proceedings, contesting the prohibition of remand prison authorities to use the applicant ’ s TV set.

27/11/2014

Kirovskiy District Court of Khabarovsk

24/06/2015

Khabarovsk Regional Court

12/04//2016

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

0

36040/17

28/04/2017

Yuriy Viktorovich ROMANENKO

07/02/1966

Romanenko Lyudmila Viktorovna

Tulun

Compensation of non-pecuniary damages for the conditions of detention in a temporary detention centre

20/09/2015

Tulun Town Court of the Irkutsk Region

07/06/2016

Irkutsk Regional Court

15/12/2016

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

1,500

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