CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 avril 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6A074E04 { width:26.04pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2DF49AA6 { width:24.54pt; display:inline-block } .sA9E99AE7 { width:197.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8E7CC06A { margin-left:15.01pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2000BC03 { margin-left:18pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } FIRST SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 9941/03 by Antonina ROLGEZER and Others against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11 April 2006 as a Chamber composed of:      Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mr   A. Kovler ,   Mrs   E. Steiner ,   Mr   K. Hajiyev ,   Mr   S.E. Jebens, judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 February 2003, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Ms Antonina Fedorovna Rolgezer and 28 others listed in the schedule, are Russian nationals, who live in the village of Naumovka in the Tomsk region. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants live in the vicinity of a radiochemical plant of the Siberian Chemical Industrial Complex (hereinafter “the plant”). They regularly undergo health checks. On an unspecified date in July 1997 the applicants sued the plant for compensation for the damage to their health caused by its activity. They also sought an injunction banning the burial ground disposal of nuclear waste. On 15 July 2002 the Seversk Town Court of the Tomsk Region dismissed their claims as unsubstantiated. The applicants were present at the public hearing. On 5 November 2002 the Tomsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. COMPLAINTS 1. The applicants complained under Article 6 about the excessive length of the proceedings. 2. The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about erroneous assessment of evidence and incorrect application of the law by the domestic courts, and unjust outcome of the proceedings. 3. The applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention that they and their children were required to submit to health checks against their will. THE LAW 1. The applicants alleged a violation of Article 6 on account of the unreasonable length of the civil proceedings. The relevant parts of Article   6 read as follows:   “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this part of the complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of it to the respondent Government. 2. The applicants complained Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the findings of the domestic courts. Article 6 provides: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” Article 13 provides: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” (a) Insofar as the applicants alleged a violation of Article 6 on account of incorrect assessment of evidence, application of the domestic law and the unfavourable result of the proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, e.g. , Čekić and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 15085/02, 9   October 2003). Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see García   Ruiz v.   Spain [GC], no.   30544/96, §   28, ECHR 1999 ‑ I). Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court finds that there is nothing to indicate that the domestic courts’ evaluation of the facts and evidence presented in the applicants’ case was contrary to Article 6 of the Convention. The applicants were fully able to present their case and challenge the evidence of the other party, public hearings were held and the courts’ decisions were amply reasoned. Having regard to the facts, as submitted, the Court has not found any reason to believe that the proceedings did not comply with the fairness requirement of Article 6 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. (b) Insofar as the applicants relied on Article 13 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 provides more rigorous procedural guarantees than Article 13 and, therefore, operates as a lex specialis in respect of Article   13 (see Philis v. Greece , no. 23202/94, Commission decision of 5 March 1996; Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain , judgment of 19   December 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ VIII, §   41). Thus, the Court considers that, having regard to its findings relating to Article 6 § 1, it is unnecessary to examine the application from the standpoint of Article 13 of the Convention since the requirements of the latter provision are less strict and are here absorbed by those of Article 6 § 1 (see Markkula v. Finland , no. 27866/95, Commission decision of 3   December 1997). It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. 3. The applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention about health checks. The Court notes that the applicants never complained about this matter to any domestic authority and therefore did not afford the State an opportunity to examine the alleged breaches of their right to respect for their private life and, if appropriate, to offer redress. It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaint concerning the excessive length of the civil proceedings; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President SCHEDULE List of applicants   No. Name Year of birth   Ms Antonina Fedorovna Rolgezer 1953   Ms Galina Vasilyevna Bakakina 1940   Mr Igor Vasilyevich Bakakin 1978   Mr Grigoriy Yuryevich Grigoryev 1982   Ms Irina Yuryevna Lisimenko 1979   Ms Yelena Aleksandrovna Degtyareva 1982   Mr Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Zibayev 1981   Mr Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Zibayev 1980   Ms Valentina Fedorovna Klimacheva 1934   Mr Aleksandr Ivanovich Konstantinov 1981   Ms Tatyana Ivanovna Konstantinova 1983   Ms Nadezhda Alekseyevna Kuzmina 1967   Mr Sergey Iosifovich Rolgezer 1984   Mr Dmitriy Pavlovich Savelyev 1977   Ms Tatyana Pavlovna Savelyeva 1982   Ms Tamara Ilyinichna Savelyeva 1932   Ms Lyudmila Ilyinichna Semakova 1954   Ms Tatyana Insafetdinovna Staseeva 1979   Ms Yelena Insafetdinovna Khaliulina 1978   Ms Irina Alekseevna Pishchulina 1960   Mr Vasiliy Dmitriyevich Pishchulin 1959   Ms Raisa Moiseevna Tryasugina 1938   Mr Aleksandr Alekseyevich Zibayev 1953   Ms Nadezhda Dmitrievna Savelyeva 1954   Ms Nadezhda Ivanovna Zibayeva 1949   Ms Svetlana Yakimovna Grigoryeva 1960   Ms Lyudmila Vasilyevna Khaliulina 1957   Ms Mariya Aleksandrovna Konstantinova 1958   Ms Olga Fedorovna Degtyareva 1961