Resolution CM/ ResDH (2018)17 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Two cases against Russian Federation

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 January 2018 at the 1303 rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Application No.

Case

Judgment of

Final on

55066/00+

RUSSIAN CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF ENTREPRENEURS AND OTHERS

11/01/2007

11/04/2007

17864/04+

KRASNOV AND SKURATOV

19/07/2007

31/03/2008

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);

Recalling that the Committee of Ministers’ decisions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention are entirely without prejudice to the Court’s consideration of other cases currently pending before it;

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 these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ ResDH ( 2018)17

Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others group of cases against Russian Federation

Case summary

These two cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right to stand for federal parliamentary elections in 1999 and 2003 (violations of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1).

In the Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others case, the Central Electoral Commission, in accordance with domestic legislation, cancelled the registration of the applicant party to stand for the elections because of the withdrawal of one of its top three candidates from its federal list (§ 52). As a result, the party and its individual candidates were disqualified from the elections for reasons unrelated to their conduct, which was disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (§ 65) and contrary to the principle of nulla poena sine culpa . The Court also found a violation on account of the undue interference with the applicant party’s possessions because the authorities refused to refund the election deposit (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). It furthermore found two violations related to the supervisory review proceedings (“ nadzor ”) in force at the material time, on account of the lack of legal certainty (violation of Article 6 § 1) and the denial of an effective remedy (violation of Article 13).

In the Krasnov and Skuratov case, the authorities refused to register the second applicant as a candidate for the elections because of his alleged failure to submit accurate information on his employment and party membership (§§ 59 and 63). The Court found that the refusal did not meet the “lawfulness” and foreseeability requirement because there was no clear legal guidance allowing the second applicant to foresee that the failure to submit such information might entail a decision on his ineligibility to stand for the elections (§ 64). Furthermore, the refusal was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons and did not accord with the undisputed facts, thus being disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (§ 66).

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

Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others

(No. 55066/00)

RUB 2,315,520

-

RUB 196,677

RUB 2,512,197

16/07/2007

Krasnov and Skuratov (No. 17864/04)

-

EUR 8,000

EUR 12,000

EUR 20,000

14/0 5/2008

b) Other individual measures

No special individual measures are required since the applicants’ right to participate in future elections is not affected by the violations found in the present cases, and since the Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary damage (refusal to refund the election deposit) suffered by the applicant party in the Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others case.

II. General measures

Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others case (violation of Articles 3 and 1 of Protocol No. 1): It appears from the judgment that, on 25 April 2000, the Constitutional Court found Section 51(11) of the 1999 Elections Act, which was the source of the violation, unconstitutional (see §§ 21-26). Subsequently, the 1999 Elections Act was replaced by similar Acts of 2002, 2005 and 2014. The current law from 2014 does not contain a similar provision. Accordingly, the source of the violation has been eliminated and no further general measures are necessary in this respect.

As to the violations (of Articles 6 and 13) related to the problems of the supervisory review proceedings (“ nadzor ”) in force at the material time, the supervision of general measures in relation to these problems was closed by the Committee of Ministers in Final Resolution CM/ ResDH (2017)83, adopted on 10 March 2017.

Krasnov and Skuratov case: The source of this violation has also been addressed by legislative changes which set out the consequences of a failure to submit accurate information by a potential candidate for elections about his or her curriculum vitae. Thus, on 5 December 2006, the Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights Act of 2002 was supplemented by Section 38 (1.1); according to which in such circumstances the election commissions have an obligation to provide a candidate with an opportunity to correct or submit the relevant information. Similar provisions are contained in the Elections Act of 2014 which also obliges the Central Election Commission to verify the accuracy of the information and, if it is inaccurate, to inform the mass media and the relevant District Election Commission about such inaccuracy. It follows that the domestic legislation is now clear and does not allow the authorities to refuse or cancel the registration of a candidate to stand for federal parliamentary elections on the ground of having submitted inaccurate information about his or her curriculum vitae. Accordingly, no further general measures are necessary in this respect.

Both judgments were translated into Russian, published and disseminated among the competent authorities.

III. Conclusions of the respondent State

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases and that these measures will prevent similar violations. The Russian Federation has, therefore, complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.