THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ALEKSEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application s no s . 24816/17 and 4 others –

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

21 February 2019

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

In the case of Alekseyev and Others v. Russia ,

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

Alena Poláčková , President, Dmitry Dedov , Jolien Schukking , judges, and Liv Tigerstedt , Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 31 January 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. Notice of the applications was given to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

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

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 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:

“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 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, as well as the Government ’ s objections of six months, 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.

III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 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, 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,

1. Decides to join the applications;

2. Declares the applications admissible ;

3. Holds that these applications 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 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 21 February 2019 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková Acting D eputy 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

Final decision

First-instance

hearing date

Court

Appeals

Date

Court

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

24816/17

11/08/2017

Denis Viktorovich Alekseyev

01/02/1979

Challenging actions preventing him from receiving an application form of the Court

30/06/2016

Leninskiy District Court, Krasnoyarsk

07/09/2016

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

06/06/2017

Supreme Court of Russia

2,000

28134/17

24/03/2017

Gafur Borisovich Abdushev

16/02/1988

Compensation proceedings

29/08/2016

Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan

07/12/2016

Astrakhan Regional Court

2,000

43005/17

11/08/2017

Vyacheslav Vladimirovich Matveyev

27/12/1990

Compensation claim for inadequate detention conditions

29/11/2016

Leninskiy District Court of Ufa

27/03/2017

Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic

2,000

46670/17

30/05/2017

Denis Aleksandrovich Karakov

27/01/1982

Complaint about poor conditions of detention

09/02/2016

Leninsky District Court of Perm

30/05/2016

Perm Regional Court

07/12/2016

Supreme Court of Russia

2,000

72309/17

01/09/2017

Anatoliy Anatolyevich Yarosha

10/12/1979

T ort action related to inadequate conditions of detention in a temporary detention facility

21/12/2016

Lesosibirsk Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region

24/04/2017

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

2,000

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