Resolution CM/ResDH(2021)168

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Five cases against Russian Federation

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 16 September 2021

at the 1411 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Application No.

Case

Judgment of

Final on

65582/01

RADCHIKOV

24/05/2007

12/11/2007

46926/09

BAKRINA

17/05/2016

17/05/2016

15336/02

EDUARD CHISTYAKOV

09/04/2009

09/07/2009

63833/09

GRUZDA

05/04/2016

05/04/2016

75469/01

KISELEV

29/01/2009

06/07/2009

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the violations established;

Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;

Having examined the information provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see Appendix);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,

DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2021)168

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the Radchikov group of cases against Russian Federation

Case summary

This group of cases concerns the violation of the principle of legal certainty in criminal proceedings on account of the quashing of final domestic judicial decisions by means of supervisory review (violations of Article 6 § 1). The European Court found that in these cases supervisory review did not serve to correct a fundamental judicial error or a miscarriage of justice but was used merely for the purpose of obtaining a rehearing and a fresh determination of the case, and thus there were no serious legitimate considerations outweighing the principle of legal certainty.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

Paid on

Radchikov

no. 65582/01

-

2,000

300EUR 2,300

13/12/2007

Bakrina

No. 46926/09

-

1,500

-

EUR 1,500

21/09/2016

Eduard Chistyakov

No. 15336/02

-

1,000

-

EUR 1,000

09/10/2009

Gruzda

No. 63833/09

-

1,500

-

EUR 1,500

30/05/2016

Kiselev

No. 75469/01

-

2,000

-

EUR 2,000

09/10/2009

b) Other individual measures

As regards the cases of Eduard Chistyakov, Kiselev, Bakrina and Gruzda , after the delivery of the European Court’s judgments, the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants were reopened. The judicial decisions taken in supervisory review as well as subsequent judicial decisions worsening the applicants’ situation were quashed. When a new examination followed, as in the Bakrina and Gruzda cases, the proceedings were either discontinued leaving in force the earlier acquittal judgment (Bakrina) or the reviewing court expressly reinstated in legal force the earlier acquittal judgment (Gruzda).

In the Radchikov case, the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued in 2001 on account of the applicant’s death.

No further individual measures are thus required.

II. General measures

The judgments have been translated, published and disseminated.

In 2010, the 2002 Code of Criminal Procedure underwent significant reform, including reform of the supervisory review. The legislative amendments adopted in 2010 entered into force on 1 January 2013. As a result of the reform, the number of judicial instances empowered to carry out supervisory review was reduced from three to one, i.e. the Presidium of the Supreme Court. The persons authorised to apply for supervisory review of final judicial decisions remained essentially the same. The time-limit for a review detrimental to the situation of the defendant has been kept restricted to one year.

Most importantly, the scope of grounds for supervisory review has been brought into line with the European Court’s case-law: such a review can take place only if the case reviewed was tainted by significant violations of the criminal law and law of criminal procedure which affected the outcome of the case, or if information has emerged about a breach of the conditions of a plea-bargain agreement or failure to abide by the obligations set down therein. The amended judicial provisions stipulate expressly that supervisory review detrimental to the situation of the defendant is only possible if the aforementioned violations and breaches were so grave as to distort the essence and meaning of a judicial decision as an act of administration of justice.

No violations have so far been established by the Court on account of the use of the reformed supervisory review.

No further general measures are therefore required.

III. Conclusions of the respondent State

The Government considers that the individual measures adopted have redressed, to the extent possible, the violations established in these cases and that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations in the future. The Russian Federation has, therefore, complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.