THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ORLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Applications nos. 36907/12 and 6 others - see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

6 April 2017

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

In the case of Orlov and Others v. Russia ,

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

Luis López Guerra, President, Dmitry Dedov , Branko Lubarda , judges , and Karen Reid, Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 16 March 2017 ,

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 applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

THE FACTS

3. The list of 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 .

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. THE GOVERNMENT ’ S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

6. The Government submitted unilateral declarations in all applications, which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government ’ s request to strike these applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of their merits (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003 ‑ VI and Rozhin v. Russia , no. 50098/07 , §§ 23-25, 6 December 2011 ).

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

7. The applicants complained that their right to a fair hearing had been breached on account of the domestic courts ’ refusal of their requests to appear i n 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 ...”

8. The Court reiterates 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 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 cases where incarcerated applicants 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 applicants ’ 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 an d 10 others, § 48, 16 February 2016).

9. In the leading case of Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, cited above , the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

10. 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 applicants of the opportunity to present their cases effectively and failed to meet their obligation to ensure respect for the principle of a fair trial.

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

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12. 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.”

13. 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.

14. 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. Rejects the Government ’ s request to strike the applications out of the list;

3. Declares the applications admissible;

4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the applicant ’ s absence from civil proceedings ;

5. 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 period plus three percentage points.

Done in Engl ish, and notified in writing on 6 April 2017 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Karen Reid Luis López Guerra 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 name

Date of birth

Nature of the dispute Final decision

First-instance hearing date Court

Appeal hearing date Court

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses

per applicant

(in euros) [1]

36907/12

10/12/2012

Sergey Aleksandrovich Orlov

17/06/1963

defamation dispute

23/01/2012

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Vladimir

30/08/2012

Vladimir Regional Court

1,500

40782/12

22/03/2012

German Nikolayevich Vyushkin

31/01/1976

non-pecuniary damages for bad conditions of detention

14/11/2011

Omutninskiy District Court of the Kirov Region

26/01/2012

Kirov Regional Court

1,500

42855/12

17/06/2012

Mikhail Alekseyevich Lunev

04/06/1984

non-pecuniary damages for unlawful criminal prosecution

15/09/2011

Belebey Town Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan

26/01/2012

Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan

1,500

42940/12

24/06/2012

Aleksey Ivanovich Bolsunovskiy

08/10/1982

employment dispute

29/02/2012

Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk

11/05/2012

Irkutsk Regional Court

1,500

43317/12

04/06/2012

Aleksandr Nikolayevich Tereshchenko

16/05/1976

non-pecuniary damages for bad conditions of detention

29/12/2011

Shahunskiy District Court of the Nizhny Novgorod Region

17/04/2012

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

1,500

68297/12

27/08/2012

Andrey Sergeyevich Matveyev

06/03/1978

non-pecuniary damages for bad conditions of detention

02/11/2011

Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg

14/06/2012

St Petersburg City Court

1,500

72157/12

01/10/2012

Dmitriy Vasilyevich Bazhan

08/01/1979

non-pecuniary damages for bad conditions of detention

12/04/2012

Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic

19/07/2012

Supreme Court of the Komi Republic

1,500

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