THIRD SECTION

CASE OF LYAKH AND KOZHUKOV v. RUSSIA

( Applications nos. 56255/15 and 79199/17 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

16 January 2020

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

In the case of Lyakh and Kozhukov 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 12 December 2019 ,

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. 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), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

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 16 January 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

Nature of the dispute

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]

56255/15

29/12/2013

Roman Gennadyevich LYAKH

09/12/1971

tort action related to inadequate conditions of detention

18/09/2012

Bor Town Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region

29/10/2013

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

29/10/2013

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

1,500

79199/17

15/01/2018

Eduard Olegovich KOZHUKOV

03/03/1976

compensation for unlawful prosecution

22/12/2016

Pskov Town Court

04/04/2017

Pskov Regional Court

16/10/2017

Supreme Court of Russia

1,500

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