Communicated on 4 September 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no 74779/10 Viktor Gennadyevich DOLGANOV against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicants are Russian nationals.

2 . The application numbers, the dates of lodging the applications, the applicants ’ names and their personal details are set out in the Appendix.

3 . The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

4 . The applicants were injured, inter alia , in the course of discharging their duties. They became parties to civil proceedings against various State authorities for the securing of the relevant compensation and/or disability benefits.

1. Application no 74779/10 Dolganov v. Russia

5 . The applicant held a post at the Kamenskiy District Internal Affairs Department ( Отдел внутренних дел по Каменскому району ).

6 . On 23 January 2006 he was discharged from military service on account of his ill health.

7 . On 27 June 2006 his disability was officially recognised.

8 . The applicant initiated two sets of civil proceedings for disability benefits against, respectively, the Rostov Region Central Internal Affairs Directorate ( ГУВД по Ростовской области ) and the Kamenskiy District Internal Affairs Department ( Отдел внутренних дел по Каменскому району ).

a) Proceedings I

9 . On 13 September 2010 the Kamenskiy District Court of the Rostov Region ( Каменский районный суд Ростовской области ) heard arguments from the applicant, the defendants ’ representatives, and the prosecutor (who argued that the action should be dismissed), and then dismissed the action.

10 . The applicant appealed and on 28 October 2010 the Rostov Regional Court ( Ростовский областной суд ) heard arguments from the applicant, the defendant ’ s representative, and the prosecutor (who argued that the first-instance judgment should be upheld), and then upheld the same.

b) Proceedings II

11 . The applicant brought an action for the monthly payment of compensation for health damage, with subsequent indexation.

12 . On 10 January 2013 the District Court heard arguments from the applicant and his representative, the defendant ’ s representative, and the prosecutor (who asked the court to deliver a judgment at its discretion – просившей вынести решение на усмотрение суда ), and then granted the action.

13 . The defendant appealed and on 18 March 2013 the Regional Court heard arguments from the applicant and his representative, and the prosecutor, and then overturned the first-instance judgment. The court delivered a new judgment by which it dismissed the action.

14 . On 11 April 2013 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal and on 26 July 2013 the Regional Court dismissed it.

15 . On 29 August 2013 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ( Верховный суд Российской Федерации ) dismissed a second cassation appeal lodged by the applicant.

2. Application no 28121/11 Bondarenko v. Russia

16 . The applicant held a post in the Rostov Region International Affairs Department.

17 . On 2 December 2005 he was discharged from military service on account of his ill health.

18 . In April of 2006 his disability was officially recognised.

19 . The applicant brought an action against, inter alia , the Rostov Region Central Internal Affairs Directorate for compensation for personal injury with subsequent indexation.

20 . On 2 December 2010 the Bataisk Town Court of the Rostov Region ( Батайский городской суд Ростовской области ) heard arguments from the applicant and the representative of one of the defendants, and then dismissed the action.

21 . The applicant lodg ed a cassation appeal and on 17 March 2011 the Rostov Regional Court ( Ростовский областной суд ) heard arguments from the applicant and the prosecutor (who argued that the cassation appeal should be dismissed), and then upheld the first-instance judgment.

3. Application no 44728/12 Sibgatullin v. Russia

22 . The applicant, a student at the Kazan Higher Military Command School ( Казанское высшее военное командное училище ), failed to complete the second year of his studies.

23 . On 2 July 2010 he was expelled from the Military Command School.

24 . On 13 September 2011 the military prosecutor of the Kazan Garrison, acting on behalf of the Kazan Higher Military Command School, brought an action against the applicant for the recovery of the money spent on his military and special training during the period of his studies.

25 . On 23 November 2011 the Nizhnekamsk Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic ( Нижнекамский городской суд Республики Татарстан ) heard arguments from the applicant and the military prosecutor (who maintained the arguments given in his statement of claim), and then granted the action.

26 . The applicant lodged a cassation appeal and on 12 January 2012 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan ( Верховный суд Республики Татарстан ) heard arguments from the applicant and his representative, and the prosecutor (who argued that the cassation appeal should be dismissed), and then upheld the first-instance judgment.

27 . On 29 March 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed a second cassation appeal lodged by the applicant.

4. Application no 59927/13 Chichadeyev v. Russia

28 . In 1982 the applicant was injured and a municipal unitary enterprise, MUP PermGorElektroTrans ( МУП ПермГорЭлектроТранс ), was found responsible for the harm inflicted to the applicant ’ s health. The enterprise was ordered to reimburse, inter alia , the annual cost of the applicant ’ s specialised health treatment.

29 . The applicant brought three sets of civil proceedings against the enterprise.

a) Proceedings I

30 . On 23 April 2014 the applicant brought an action against the enterprise for the recovery of the difference between the amount actually spent by the applicant in 2011 on his specialised health treatment and the amount paid by the enterprise in advance.

31 . On 8 October 2014 the Motovilikhinskiy District Court of Perm ( Мотовилихинский районный суд г . Перми ) heard arguments from the applicant, the defendant ’ s representative, the representative of the third party, and the prosecutor (who argued that the action should be dismissed), and then dismissed the action.

32 . On 6 November 2014 the applicant appealed, complaining, inter alia , that the participation of the prosecutor in the proceedings had undermined the principle of equality of arms.

33 . On 12 January 2015 the Perm Regional Court ( Пермский краевой суд ) heard arguments from the applicant, the defendant ’ s representative, and the prosecutor (who argued that the first-instance judgment should be upheld), and then upheld the first-instance judgment.

b) Proceedings II

34 . The applicant brought an action against the enterprise for the recovery of the interest in respect of the improper use of other persons ’ monetary resources (that is to say on the unpaid amounts due to the applicant as compensation for the harm caused to his health) .

35 . On 22 December 2011 the District Court heard arguments from the defendant ’ s representative, and then granted the action.

36 . The defendant appealed and on 20 February 2012 the Regional Court heard arguments from the prosecutor (who argued that the first-instance judgment should be overturned and the proceedings be terminated), and then overturned the first-instance judgment and terminated the proceedings.

37 . The applicant lodg ed a cassation appeal and on 25 April 2012 the Regional Court dismissed it.

38 . On 1 June 2012 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ( Верховный суд Российской Федерации ) dismissed a second cassation appeal lodged by the applicant.

c) Proceedings III

39 . On 7 September 2012 the applicant brought an action against the enterprise for the recovery of the expenses actually incurred by him in 2012 in relation to the specialised health treatment.

40 . On 20 December 2012 the District Court heard arguments from the defendant ’ s representative and the representative of the third party, and then dismissed the action.

41 . On 1 April 2013 the Regional Court heard arguments from the applicant, the defendant ’ s representative, and the prosecutor (who argued that there were no grounds for overturning of the first-instance judgment), and then upheld the first-instance judgment.

42 . The applicant lodged a cassation appeal and on 17 July 2013 the Regional Court upheld the lower courts ’ judgments.

5. Application no 35725/16 Yefanov v. Russia

43 . On 14 November 1986 the applicant sustained a work-related injury and became disabled. He receives a disability pension and monthly insurance payments from the Kuzbas Region Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation.

44 . The applicant brought proceedings against the aforementioned Kuzbas Division for the re-calculation of his insurance payments.

45 . On 19 June 2014 the Tsentralnyi District Court of Kemerovo ( Центральный районный суд г . Кемерово ) heard arguments from two representatives of the applicant, the defendant ’ s representative, and the prosecutor (who argued that the action should be granted), and then granted the action.

46 . The defendant appealed and on 7 October 2014 the Kemerovo Regional Court ( Кемеровский областной суд ) heard arguments from two representatives of the applicant, and the prosecutor (who argued that the first-instance judgment had been lawful and duly reasoned), and then upheld the first-instance judgment.

47 . The defendant lodged a cassation appeal together with a motion that the prosecutor be allowed to join the proceedings without the right to publicly support or oppose the arguments of either party to the proceedings.

48 . O n 1 June 2015 the Regional Court heard arguments from two representatives of the applicant, the defendant ’ s representative, and the prosecutor (who argued that the lower courts ’ judgments should be overturned and the action dismissed), and then overturned the lower courts ’ judgments. The court then delivered a new judgment in the case by which it dismissed the action.

49 . The applicant lodged a second cassation appeal and complained, inter alia , that the participation of a prosecutor in the cassation instance had breached the equality of arms principle provided by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

50 . On 15 December 2015 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ( Верховный суд Российской Федерации ) dismissed the applicant ’ s claims.

COMPLAINT

51 . The applicants complain that the participation of a prosecutor in the civil proceedings had contravened Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by, inter alia undermining the principle of equality of arms.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the involvement of a prosecutor in these proceedings?

2. Did the applicants exhaust the available and effective domestic remedies in respect of the prosecutor ’ s participation in the relevant proceedings? If not, what were the remedies they had at their disposal?

3. What were the grounds in the domestic law and/or practice allowing for the prosecutor ’ s participation in the sets of proceedings in question?

4. What were the reasons justifying the prosecutor ’ s participation in the proceedings?

5. Did the domestic courts duly review the above reasons having regard to the individual situation of each party to the proceedings? Did they consider any impact that any such an individual situation might have on the equality of arms in the proceedings?

APPENDIX

No.

Application

no.

Lodged on

Applicant ’ s name

date of birth

place of residence

Final judgment

74779/10

15/12/2010

Viktor Gennadyevich DOLGANOV

05/03/1962

Kamensk-Shakhtinskiy , Rostov Region

Proceedings I . Rostov Regional Court,

28 October 2010

Proceedings II . Supreme Court of the Russian Federation,

29 August 2013

28121/11

18/04/2011

Nikolay Ivanovich BONDARENKO

07/03/1966

Bataysk , Rostov Region

Rostov Regional Court,

17 March 2011

44728/12

15/06/2012

Ilnur Fanisovich SIBGATULLIN

19/09/1991

Nizhnekamsk

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic,

29 March 2012

59927/13

10/05/2012

Vladimir Veniaminovich CHICHADEYEV

29/01/1954

Perm

Proceedings I . Perm Regional Court,

12 January 2015

Proceedings II . Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 1 June 2012

Proceedings III. Perm Regional Court,

17 July 2013

35725/16

14/06/2016

Yuriy Mikhaylovich YEFANOV

09/04/1958

Belovo , Kemerovo Region

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation,

15 December 2015