CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 4 avril 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sDD67E0A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:center } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s74FD211E { width:197.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s9FF069EB { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:1.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s49A360F1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:10.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sC34EF182 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:1.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:1.7pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s12036D70 { height:43.45pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s7436C279 { margin-left:29.67pt; padding-left:6.33pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s57B74627 { height:61.1pt } .s97C4337 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .sC4A995C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; font-size:8pt } .s1A5E0776 { height:59.3pt } .s1B240776 { height:59.5pt } .s28C3756B { height:57.25pt } .s39650776 { height:58.1pt } .s57F94627 { height:61.7pt } .s7FD70776 { height:57.6pt } .s78E4627 { height:62.1pt } .sBFFDAF1F { margin-left:34.12pt; padding-left:1.88pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s74FF2640 { height:119.9pt } .s388F4627 { height:66.2pt } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE06A73D2 { margin-left:34.12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.88pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADF8F600 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }       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 twelve 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). II.     THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     On 9 November 2016, after unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government submitted unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applicants. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications, in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. 8.     In the declarations, 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], nos.   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 applications. 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. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVETNTION AND 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 applicants’ 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 combined 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 applicants, 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 points. 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. Date of introduction Date 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 No. 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 3 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