THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SADKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Applications nos. 17229/06 and 11 others – see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

4 April 2017

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

In the case of Sadkova 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 Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 14 March 2017 ,

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

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in t welve applications (nos. 17229/06 , 26346/06, 40526/06, 41729/08, 41756/08, 41759/08, 41761/08, 41768/08, 41773/08, 41842/08, 41854/08 and 41861/08 ) 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 fourteen Russian nationals (“the applicants”) . The applicants ’ names and the dates of their applications to the Court appear in the Appendix.

2 . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin , Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights .

3 . On various dates (indicated in the Appendix) these complaints were communicated to the respondent Government.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4 . All the applicants were party to civil proceedings in which the first ‑ instance and appeal courts found in their favour. These judgments became binding and enforceable but were subsequently quashed by the supervisory review courts on the ground of incorrect application of substantive law or incorrect assessment of evidence by lower courts (for more details see the Appendix).

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

5 . The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure in force between 1 February 2003 and 7 January 2008 is summarised in Kot v. Russia (no. 20887/03, § 17, 18 January 2007).

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

6 . In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of the Court, the Court decides to consider the applications in a single judgment, given their similar factual and legal background (see Kazakevich and 9 other “Army Pensioners” cases v. Russia , nos. 14290/03 and 9 others , § 15, 14 January 2010).

I I . THE GOVERNMENT ’ S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE CONVENTION

7 . On 9 November 2016 , a fter unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations , the Government submitted unilateral declaration s with a view to resolv ing the issue raised by the applicant s . They further requested the Court to strike out the application s , in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

8 . In the declaration s , the Government acknowledged that the quashing of the final judgments in the applicants ’ favour had been in violation of Article 6 of the Convention and in the Morozov case also in violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention. They stated their readiness to pay Mr Morozov 3,500 euros (EUR) and EUR 1,050 to each of the other applicants .

9 . The applicants rejected the Government ’ s offer considering that it was insufficient.

10 . The Court observes, on the one hand, that the Government explicitly acknowledged a violation of the Convention on account of the quashing by way of supervisory review of the binding and enforceable judgments in the applicants ’ favour .

11 . On the other hand, the amount of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage proposed by the Government differs substantially from the amounts of compensation awarded to the applicants by the Court in virtually identical cases (see Gruzda v. Russia [Committee], no. 63833/09, § 23, 5 April 2016 , and Kovalenko and Others , [Committee], no s . 36299/03 and 6 others , §§ 42-43, 8 December 2015 ).

12 . The Court cannot therefore accept that the compensation offered by the Government in respect of non-pecuniary , and in the Morozov case in respect of non-pecuniary and pecuniary, damage constitutes adequate and sufficient redress for the violations of the applicants ’ rights under the Convention (see Gorfunkel v. Russia , no. 42974/07, §§ 15-29, 19 September 2013). It follows that the Government ’ s declaration, while acknowledging the violations of the Convention, fails to ensure respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and thus compels the Court to continue its examination of the application s .

13 . That being so, the Court rejects the Government ’ s request to strike the application out under Article 37 of the Convention and will examine the admissibility and merits of the case.

I II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVETNTION A ND ARTICLE 1 OF THE PROTOCOLE No . 1 TO THE CONVENTION

14 . All the applicants complained about a violation of the principle of legal certainty on account of the quashing by way of supervisory review of binding and enforceable judgments in their favour. They invoked Article 6 of the Convention. In the Morozov case the applicant in addition invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see the Appendix). The relevant parts of the aforementioned provisions read:

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law ...”

A. Admissibility

15 . The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

16 . The Court observes that it has already found numerous violations of the Convention on account of the quashing of binding and enforceable judgments by way of supervisory review under the Code of Civil Procedure, as in force at the material time (see Kot , cited above, § 29). Some of those violations were found in similar circumstances and similarly concerned the quashing of final domestic judgments making awards (see, among many other authorities, Kovalenko and Others , cited above, and Zelenkevich and Others v. Russia , [Committee], no. 14805/02, 20 June 2013). The Court does not see any reasons to reach a different conclusion in the present cases.

17 . Having examined all the material before it, as well as paying attention to the Government ’ s acknowledgement of a violation of the applicant s ’ rights, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and a violation of the same Article combined with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in the case of Morozov .

IV . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

18 . 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.”

19 . Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Gruzda , cited above , and Kovalenko and Others , cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award each applicant the sums indicated in the Appendix.

20 . 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, in respect of all the applications, the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the quashing by way of supervisory review of final domestic judgments in the applicants ’ favour admissible ;

4 . Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in the cases of Sadkova , Klimenkova , Kulayev , Nenaychuk , Rytikov , Khalipov , Fokin , Ogay , Inoyatov , Bozhko and Others and Apanovich and a violation of the same Article comb ined with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the case of Morozov on account of the quashing by way of supervisory review of the final judgments in the applicants ’ favour;

5 . 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 period plus three percentage p oints.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 April 2017 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Fatoş Aracı Luis López Guerra Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

D ate of introduction

D ate of communication

Applicant name

Date of birth

Place of residence

Nationality

Represented by

Final domestic judgment

a) date of delivery

b) date of becoming final

Quashing

Complaints

Just satisfaction

(each of the applicants)

17229/06

01/03/2006

04/07/2016

Tatyana Aleksandrovna SADKOVA

28/10/1962

Yoshkar-Ola

Russian

Justice of the Peace N o . 1 Court Circuit of Yoshkar-Ola

14/04/2005

24/05/2005

Presidium of the Supreme Court of Mariy El

30/09/2005

Article 6

EUR 1,500

26346/06

06/04/2006

04/07/2016

Vladimir Vyacheslavovich MOROZOV

04/10/1955

Voronezh

Russian

Ilya Vladimirovich SIVOLDAYEV

Central Distirict Court of Voronezh 02/08/2005 26/08/2005

Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court 19/12/2005

Article 6

Article 1 of Prot. No.1

EUR 5,000

40526/06

14/09/2006

04/07/2016

Yelena Vasilyevna KLIMENKOVA

23/07/1961

Moscow

Russian

Mikhail Leonidovich IOFFE

Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow 06/12/2006 27/04/2007

Presidium of the Moscow City Court 03/04/2008

Article 6

EUR 1,500

41729/08

18/08/2008

06/07/2016

Sergey Fedorovich KULAYEV

14/06/1949

Yessentuki

Russian

Vladimir Mikhaylovich ZAVYALOV

Mineralovodskiy City Court of Stavropol Region 18/10/2006 03/11/2006

Presidium of Stavropol Regional Court 28/02/2008

Article 6

EUR 1,500

41756/08

18/08/2008

06/07/2016

Nikolay Nikolayevich NENAYCHUK

02/09/1951

Yessentuki

Russian

Vladimir Mikhaylovich ZAVYALOV

Mineralovodskiy City Court of Stavropol Region 18/10/2006 03/11/2006

Presidium of Stavropol Regional Court 28/02/2008

Article 6

EUR 1,500

41759/08

18/08/2008

06/07/2016

Vladimir Nikolayevich RYTIKOV

10/10/1951

Yessentuki

Russian

Vladimir Mikhaylovich ZAVYALOV

Mineralovodskiy City Court of Stavropol Region 18/10/2006 03/11/2006

Presidium of Stavropol Regional Court 28/02/2008

Article 6

EUR 1,500

41761/08

18/08/2008

06/07/2016

Aleksandr Mikhaylovich KHALIPOV

03/02/1956

Yessentuki

Russian

Vladimir Mikhaylovich ZAVYALOV

Mineralovodskiy City Court of Stavropol Region 18/10/2006 03/11/2006

Presidium of Stavropol Regional Court 28/02/2008

Article 6

EUR 1,500

41768/08

18/08/2008

06/07/2016

Sergey Vasilyevich FOKIN

13/11/1950

Yessentuki

Russian

Vladimir Mikhaylovich ZAVYALOV

Mineralovodskiy City Court of Stavropol Region 18/10/2006 03/11/2006

Presidium of Stavropol Regional Court 28/02/2008

Article 6

EUR 1,500

41773/08

18/08/2008

06/07/2016

Lef Bemiyevich OGAY

12/06/1948

Yessentuki

Russian

Vladimir Mikhaylovich ZAVYALOV

Mineralovodskiy City Court of Stavropol Region 18/10/2006 03/11/2006

Presidium of Stavropol Regional Court 28/02/2008

Article 6

EUR 1,500

41842/08

18/08/2008

06/07/2016

Vladimir Timurovich INOYATOV

10/05/1957

Yessentuki

Russian

Vladimir Mikhaylovich ZAVYALOV

Mineralovodskiy City Court of Stavropol Region 18/10/2006 03/11/2006

Presidium of Stavropol Regional Court 28/02/2008

Article 6

EUR 1,500

41854/08

18/08/2008

06/07/2016

Andrey Alekseyevich BOZHKO

29/05/1967

Yessentuki

Russian

Tatyana Andreyevna BOZHKO

unknown

Danila Andreyevich BOZHKO

unknown

Vladimir Mikhaylovich ZAVYALOV

Mineralovodskiy City Court of Stavropol Region 18/10/2006 03/11/2006

Presidium of Stavropol Regional Court 28/02/2008

Article 6

EUR 1,500

41861/08

18/08/2008

06/07/2016

Petr Pavlovich APANOVICH

08/01/1949

Yessentuki

Russian

Vladimir Mikhaylovich ZAVYALOV

Mineralovodskiy City Court of Stavropol Region 18/10/2006 03/11/2006

Presidium of Stavropol Regional Court 28/02/2008

Article 6

EUR 1,500