CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 7 novembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s702FC9B7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:56.6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; 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 } .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 } .s10AB3CA3 { font-family:Arial; color:#222222 } .sC83985A0 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#222222 } .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 } .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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sC71A4132 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.5pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s1B106575 { height:34.05pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC0093D9B { margin-left:18pt; text-indent:-18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DFBD879 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt 1.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s525AE8B1 { height:43.1pt } .sCB04A2F9 { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s31926575 { height:32.45pt } .s30D06575 { height:32.25pt } .sC5C14500 { height:34.7pt } .sCD08263B { height:29.6pt } .s95937AA7 { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt 1.02pt; vertical-align:top } .s31316575 { height:32.35pt } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s310E6575 { height:32.05pt } .s41375D7A { height:27.85pt } .sEAA4263B { height:28.9pt } .sDCA56575 { height:31.65pt } .sCBBE263B { height:29.8pt } .s1A4A6575 { height:33.15pt } .sEBEE263B { height:28.7pt } .sEFB62F38 { height:32pt } .s321E263B { height:27.6pt } .s1AD26575 { height:34.25pt } .sBD94500 { height:36.9pt } .sDBB86575 { height:31.95pt } .s8EDCE8B1 { height:45.9pt } .sFB856575 { height:30.15pt } .sC75A0776 { height:51.7pt } .sEC30263B { height:28.5pt } .sDC014500 { height:32.5pt } .sDC216575 { height:31.25pt } .s3353E8B1 { height:40.3pt } .s2A9E4500 { height:31.9pt } .s4DA46575 { height:38.85pt } .sCD29263B { height:29.7pt } .sDA544500 { height:32.8pt } .s3ABA6575 { height:37.55pt } .sA73E4500 { height:35.5pt } .sBE1E6575 { height:36.45pt } .s5165D7A { height:25.15pt } .s316F6575 { height:32.15pt } .sEBD0D88E { height:63.15pt } .sEA83263B { height:28.8pt } .s9FA756B { height:53.55pt } .s39365D7A { height:29.55pt } .sC53D4500 { height:34.3pt } .s1F982F38 { height:34pt } .sFBA86575 { height:30.45pt } .s69514500 { height:33.6pt } .s57FB5D7A { height:28.55pt } .sC4FC5D7A { height:26.85pt } .s38135D7A { height:29.25pt } .sD8D1073 { height:28pt } .sC51C4500 { height:34.2pt } .s1A0C6575 { height:33.35pt } .s7A72F38 { height:31pt } .sDCC06575 { height:31.15pt } .s76BE4627 { height:60.7pt } .sDD066575 { height:31.75pt } .s4775D7A { height:25.25pt } .s41985D7A { height:27.95pt } .s38D55D7A { height:29.45pt } .sDC826575 { height:31.35pt } .sA5B24500 { height:35.9pt } .sDB576575 { height:31.85pt } .s40E5D7A { height:25.95pt } .sCBDF263B { height:29.9pt } .s39C80776 { height:58.4pt } .s4E056575 { height:38.95pt } .sDBE04500 { height:32.4pt } .sDA754500 { height:32.9pt } .s7F914500 { height:39.4pt } .s2B434500 { height:31.2pt } .s459B6D70 { height:48.95pt } .sDB9E4500 { height:32.6pt } .s2B644500 { height:31.3pt } .sF7B12F38 { height:33pt } .s4600776 { height:53.3pt } .sCCE7263B { height:29.1pt } .s38515D7A { height:29.05pt } .s19AB6575 { height:33.25pt } .s57775D7A { height:28.15pt } .sFB246575 { height:30.05pt } .s2BE84500 { height:31.7pt } .s4B55D7A { height:25.05pt } .s4A084500 { height:30.2pt } .s49634500 { height:30.9pt } .s282E263B { height:22.9pt } .s3395E8B1 { height:40.1pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sDB1A4500 { height:32.2pt } .s9CCA4500 { height:38.8pt } .s3260263B { height:27.4pt } .sDB7D4500 { height:32.1pt } .s14F1E8B1 { height:41.6pt } .s38745D7A { height:29.35pt }       THIRD SECTION                   CASE OF KABARDOKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 11421/13 and 22 others - see appended list)                   JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   7 November 2017           This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.     In the case of Kabardokov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 10 October 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in 23 applications (nos.   11421/13, 15459/13, 15625/13, 15651/13, 18295/13, 19142/13, 19156/13, 19161/13, 19398/13, 19408/13, 19549/13, 19687/13, 19697/13, 19722/13, 22925/13, 22935/13, 22953/13, 23006/13, 23109/13, 23135/13, 23145/13, 26466/13 and 58066/13) 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 one hundred sixty-three Russian nationals. The applicants’ details appear in the Appendix. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. 3.     On 27 August and 28 August 2014 the applications were communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     Between 1986 and 1987 the applicants took part in the clean-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. They were subsequently registered disabled and became entitled to various social benefits and compensation paid on a regular basis. 5.     Considering these benefits insufficient, the applicants together with other 482   people, sued the Russian Ministry of Finance for additional compensation corresponding to non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of their participation in the operation. 6.     On different dates in January and April 2011 the Nalchik Town Court of Kabardino-Balkaria (“the Town Court”) allowed their claims in part and awarded each claimant, including the applicants, compensation ranging between 1,100,000 Russian roubles (RUB) and RUB   1,800,000 for non ‑ pecuniary damage. 7.     No appeals were lodged against these judgments within the statutory ten-day time-limit. The judgments became final. Some judgments in respect of several applicants remained unenforced (see “Enforcement status” in the Appendix). 8.     On different dates in 2012 and 2013 the domestic courts granted the defendant authority’s request to extend the time-limit for appeal essentially on the ground that the defendant authority had not been served with the impugned judgments. Subsequently the regional Supreme Court quashed the judgments delivered in the applicants’ favour on the grounds that they had been based on retrospective application of the law. The applicants were ordered to repay the sums received under the judgments. 9 .     The applicants lodged a supervisory review application. There is no indication that they requested the enforcement proceedings to be suspended pending the examination of their supervisory review application. 10 .     Between June and August 2013 the Presidium of the regional Supreme Court partially quashed the appeal judgments as regards the applicants’ obligation to reimburse the sums paid. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 11.     The relevant domestic law and practice governing the restoration of the time-limits for appeal is summed up in the Court’s judgment in the case of Magomedov and Others v. Russia (nos.   33636/09 and 9 others, §§   35-43, 28 March 2017). THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 12.     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.     STRIKING PARTS OF THE APPLICATIONS OUT OF THE LIST OF CASES 13.     The Court notes that in their submissions of various dates in 2015 some of the applicants’ representatives informed the Court that the applicants either did not intend to pursue their applications before the Court, or that they failed to maintain contact with the representatives concerning the proceedings before the Court. 14.     Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, in its relevant part, reads: “1.     The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that (a)     the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or ... ... (c)     ... it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application ...” 15.     On different dates indicated in the appendix (see ”Strike out warnings” in the Appendix) the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their comments and just satisfaction claims had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ attention was drawn to Article   37 §   1   (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 16.     No response has been received from the applicants, who have not contacted the Court ever since. 17.     The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, within the meaning of Article   37 §   1   (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article   37 §   1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the applications. 18.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the applications in respect of the applicants indicated in the appendix (see “Strike out” in the Appendix) out of the list. III.     LOCUS STANDI AS REGARDS THE APPLICATIONS Nos.   15651/13, 19156/13, 19408/13, 19687/13, 19722/13 AND 23006/13 19.     The Court notes that Ms   M.   Arkhipova, Ms   O.   Lopatina, Ms   M.   Kazbekova, Ms   Z.   Nastuyeva, Ms   L.   Neyevina, Ms   L.   Finogenova, Ms   R.   Shiklyasheva, and Ms   M.   Yermolova expressed a wish to continue proceedings in respect of their deceased relatives. A.     The parties’ submissions 20.     With reference to the case of Belskiy v. Russia ((dec.), no. 23593/03, 26 November 2009) the Government submitted that the relatives of the deceased applicants had neither been involved in the domestic proceedings either before or after the applicants’ death nor applied for legal succession in those proceedings. The award in the applicants’ favour was made by the domestic courts in respect of compensation for health damage which under the domestic law was of personal non-transferrable nature and did not provide for legal succession of the right to compensation. Therefore, the applicants’ relatives did not inherit the right to claim the judgment debt. Furthermore, in respect of some of the applicants the judgments had been annulled and thus no compensation debt existed at the moment of the applicants’ death. Therefore, the relevant applications should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. 21.     The applicants did not comment on the Government’s submission. B.     The Court’s assessment 22.     As to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court notes that it has previously recognised the right of the relatives of the deceased applicants to pursue the application concerning social payments due to their close relatives but not received in their lifetimes (see Streltsov and other “Novocherkassk military pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 8549/06 and 86   others, § 37, 29 July 2010, and Nosov and Others v. Russia , nos. 9117/04 and 10441/04, §§ 29-30, 20 February 2014). However, unlike the Streltsov and other “Novocherkassk military pensioners” cases (cited above), the present applications concern non-pecuniary compensations for health damage, which was a sole instantaneous act closely linked to the victims. Moreover the relatives of the late applicants failed to submit any evidence in respect of the acceptance of the late applicants’ inheritance. Having regard to the above mentioned circumstances, the Court considers that there is nothing in the cases at hand to conclude that the late applicants’ relatives have standing to continue proceedings. 23.     As regards the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 of the Convention, the Court notes, that in the applications at hand the restoration of time-limit for appeal was closely related to the principle of legal certainty and of the “right to a court” (see, for instance, Sobelin and Others v. Russia , nos. 30672/03 and 11 others, § 67, 3 May 2007). However, since the restoration of the time-limit under Article   6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention are closely interrelated, and considering that it has already rejected the relatives’ standing as regards the complaint under the latter provision of the Convention (see the paragraph above), the Court does not consider it necessary to draw a distinction between two aspects of the restoration of time-limit procedure for the purposes of determination of the standing issue. 24.     Accordingly, the Court finds that Ms   M.   Arkhipova, Ms   M.   Kazbekova, Ms   Z.   Nastuyeva, Ms   O.   Lopatina, Ms   L.   Finogenova, Ms   R.   Shiklyasheva, Ms   L.   Neyevina and Ms   M.   Yermolova do not have a legitimate interest in pursuing the proceedings before the Court in the late applicants’ stead. 25.     The Court does not consider that “respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and the Protocols” requires the examination of these applications, despite the applicants’ death. 26.     In these circumstances the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications in part of the above mentioned applicants and concludes, under Article   37 §   1 (c) of the Convention, that they should be struck out of its list of cases. IV.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 27.     The applicants complained that the unlawful extension of the time ‑ limit for appeal granted by the domestic courts following the defendant authority’s request had resulted in the judgments in their favour being quashed, which consequently constituted a violation of their right to a court. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, read as follows: Article 6 § 1 “1.     In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” A.     Admissibility 28.     The Government submitted from the outset that the domestic judgments in respect of some applicants had been executed in full prior to being quashed and they were not required to reimburse them afterwards (see “Enforcement status” in the Appendix). Consequently, the Government considered that the applicants had not suffered any significant disadvantage as a result of the domestic judgments in their favour being quashed. 29.     The applicants maintained their claims. 30.     Article 35 of the Convention provides as follows: “3.     The Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Article 34 if it considers that: ... (b)     the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage, unless respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits and provided that no case may be rejected on this ground which has not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal.” 31.     The Court notes at the outset that it has already addressed similar issue in the identical case Samoylenko and Others v. Russia (dec.) (nos.   58068/13 and 3 others, 7 March 2017). It thus does not see any ground to depart from the findings in that case. 32.     The Court notes that the main aspect of this criterion is whether the applicant has suffered any significant disadvantage. The absence of any such disadvantage can be based on criteria such as the financial impact of the matter in dispute or the importance of the case for the applicant (see Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec.), no.   36659/04, § 33, 1 June 2010, with further references). 33.     In the present case, the applicants do not dispute that the payments due under the initial judgments were made to them in full. Although these judgments were subsequently quashed, the domestic courts ruled that the applicants could not be required to repay the sums paid (see paragraph 10 above). Consequently, the financial implications of the proceedings could not present any particular hardship for the applicants. 34.     As regards their claim that they had suffered distress on account of the enforcement proceedings, the Court observes that the judgments in their favour were quashed by the regional Supreme Court, which also ordered the reversal of the awards paid. The applicants then lodged a supervisory review application with the Presidium of the same court. It was open to them and their lawyers to request while lodging their supervisory review application that the enforcement proceedings be stayed (see paragraph 9 above). They could thus have avoided exposing themselves to the risk of having bailiffs attempt to seize their property pending the examination of their supervisory review application. They however failed to do so. 35.     In these circumstances, the Court finds that the applicants did not suffer any “significant disadvantage”. 36.     As to the question whether respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits, the Court points out that it has already held that respect for human rights does not require it to continue the examination of an application when, for example, the relevant law has changed and similar issues have been resolved in other cases before it (see Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no.   19324/02, § 51, 30 March 2009). 37.     The present case raises a problem of an unjustified extension of the time-limits for appeal resulting in a final judgment in the applicants’ favour being quashed, an issue which has already been addressed by the Court on several occasions, including in a case against Russia (see Magomedov and Others, cited above, §§ 98-101). The examination of these applications on the merits would not bring any new elements to the Court’s existing case-law (see Burov v. Moldova (dec.), no.   38875/03, § 33, 14 June 2011, and, by contrast, Mikhaylova v. Russia , no.   46998/08, §   49, 19   November 2015). 38.     The Court therefore concludes that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require an examination of the applications on the merits. 39.     Lastly, as regards the third condition of this inadmissibility criterion, namely that the case must have been “duly considered” by a domestic tribunal, the Court notes that the applicants’ case was subject to several rounds of domestic proceedings. The applicants were present at each hearing and were therefore able to submit their arguments in adversarial proceedings. 40.     The three conditions of the inadmissibility criterion having therefore been satisfied, the Court finds that the applications must be declared inadmissible under Article 35 §§ 3 (b) and 4 of the Convention. 41.     As regards the applications where the judgements in the applicants’ favour remained unenforced or the enforcement had been reversed and the paid amounts had been restored (see “Enforcement status” in the Appendix), the Court notes that the applicants’ complaints are not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article   35 §   3 of the Convention. It also notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 42.     The Government considered that the present cases were similar to those previously examined by the Court and in which it did not find a violation of Article 6 (see, for instance, Tolstobrov v. Russia , no.   11612/05, 4 March 2010, and Protsenko v. Russia , no. 13151/04, 31 July 2008). They referred to the reasons stated by the Ministry of finance in its request for the reinstatement of the time-limit for appeal, namely that it had never been notified about the proceedings and the judgments delivered against it and was thus deprived of the possibility to lodge an appeal in due time. It is established and not disputed by the parties that a copy of the judgments had never been notified to the Ministry of finance or given to its representatives. 43.     The applicants maintained their claims. 44.     The Court reiterates that the existence of reasons capable of justifying a departure from the principle of legal certainty, even where they are established, is not in itself sufficient to conclude to the absence of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention. Another important factor should be taken into account, that is the time elapsed from the moment when the person requesting the extension of the time-limits became aware that a judgment was delivered against him. Since the extension of the time-limits for appeal constitutes an interference with the principle of res judicata , a person requesting such an extension should act with sufficient diligence, that is without delay from the moment when he became aware, or ought to have become aware, of the judgment subject to appeal ( Magomedov and Others , cited above, § 89, with further references). 45.     Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court recalls that it had already had an opportunity to examine the domestic proceedings complained of in the present case in its Magomedov and Others judgment (cited above), where it found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts’ failure to examine when the Ministry became aware or “ought to have become aware” of the adoption of the judgments against it, in particular in view of a significant lapse of time between the delivery of those judgments and the introduction by the Ministry of its out-of-time appeals ( Magomedov and Others , cited above, §§   98-101). The Court does not see any reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. 46.     There has accordingly been a violation of Article   6 of the Convention. V.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION 47.     Invoking Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, cited above, the applicants further complained about violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions relying on the same facts. The relevant part of the aforementioned Article read as follows: 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.” 48.     Having regard to its conclusion under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that there is no need to consider either the admissibility or the merits of the complaint submitted by the applicants under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Magomedov and Others, cited above, § 103, with numerous further references ). VI.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 49.     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.” A.     Damage 50.     The applicants claimed full amounts awarded by the domestic courts. 51.     The Government argued that no award should be made to the applicants, since they either lost their victim status or their Convention rights had not been violated. 52.     The Court reiterates its finding that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the interference with the principle of legal certainty. As regards the applicants’ claim for pecuniary damage, the Court does not see a causal link between the violation found and the alleged pecuniary damage and rejects those claims. Moreover, it considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage which may have been suffered by the applicants. B.     Costs and expenses 53.     Some of the applicants also claimed various amounts in respect of the costs and expenses. 54.     The Government contested that amount, stating in particular that no evidence was provided by the applicants in support of their claim. 55.     According to the case-law of the Court, an applicant can only be reimbursed for his costs and expenses in so far as their reality, necessity and reasonableness are established. In the present case, having regard to the documents before it and having regard to the findings of violations to which it has been subjected, the Court dismisses the claim for costs and expenses. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Decides to strike the applications in part of the applicants indicated in the Appendix out of its list of cases;   3.     Declares the applications in part of the applicants who did not receive the domestic courts’ awards admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;   4.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention;   5.     Holds that it is not necessary to consider separately the admissibility and the merits of the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;   6.     Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants;   7.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 November 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. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth (Deceased on) (Heir) Place of residence   Represented by Final domestic judgment date of delivery (date of becoming final) Quashing of the final judgments (and order to reverse the execution) Quashing of the reversal of the execution Strike out warning Enforcement status Strike out No significant disadvantage Violation   11421/13 22/01/2013 Khamid Khatutovich Kabardokov 12/03/1949 Tambovskoye Zaur Borisovich Geshev   12/04/2011 (25/04/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Viktor Vladimirovich Bocharnikov Russian 19/04/1954 Baksan   12/04/2011 (25/04/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Yuriy Khadisovich Gergov 16/04/1947 Baksan   12/04/2011 (25/04/2011) 07/09/2012 20/11/2014   Enforced   No significant disadvantage   Mukhadin Adamovich Dotkulov 29/08/1949 Baksan   12/04/2011 (25/04/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Zamir Misostovich Kardanov 02/05/1951 Baksan   12/04/2011 (25/04/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Gali Ezdanovich Shaov 27/09/1956 Baksan   12/04/2011 (25/04/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention     15459/13 09/02/2013 Baydulakh Magometovich Aytekov 08/01/1952 Khabaz Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov 18/02/2011 (01/03/2011) 10/10/2012       Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Askerbiy Aslanovich Baysiyev 29/09/1957 Nalchik   18/02/2011 (01/03/2011) 10/10/2012     24/08/2015 Unenforced Strike out     Ivan Grigoryevich Zaika 18/02/1953 Baksan   18/02/2011 (01/03/2011) 10/10/2012   13/06/2013   Enforced   No significant disadvantage   Viktor Mikhaylovich Krementsov 29/08/1955 Prokhladnyy   18/02/2011 (01/03/2011) 10/10/2012       Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Vasiliy Vasilyevich Popovich 05/01/1953 Prokhladnyy   18/02/2011 (01/03/2011) 10/10/2012       Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Mikhail Mikhaylovich Panchenko 14/11/1954 Mayskiy   18/02/2011 (01/03/2011) 10/10/2012     24/08/2015 Unenforced Strike out     Ruslan Galiyevich Umarov 02/03/1954 Nalchik   18/02/2011 (01/03/2011) 10/10/2012     24/08/2015 Unenforced Strike out     Sergey Ivanovich Sobakar 04/09/1958 Novo-Poltavskoye   18/02/2011 (01/03/2011) 10/10/2012       Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention     15625/13 09/02/2013 Timur Khasanovich Gukezhev 07/09/1968 Krasnoarmeyskoye Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov 18/02/2011 (01/03/2011) 07/09/2012 30/05/2013   Enforced   No significant disadvantage   Gisa Musayevich Guchapshev 15/10/1956 Tyrnyauz   18/02/2011 (01/03/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Isuf Abuzedovich Kumykov 30/12/1955 Psynadakha   18/02/2011 (01/03/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Mikhail Aniuarovich Sarakhov 28/02/1957 Terek   18/02/2011 (01/03/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Seyfu Yusufovich Khairov 31/03/1954 Novaya Balkariya   18/02/2011 (01/03/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Arsen Khasanbiyevich Urusmambetov 29/10/1959 Nartkala   18/02/2011 (01/03/2011) 07/09/2012 30/05/2013 24/082015 Enforced Strike out     Muayed Khasanovich Khokonov 15/08/1954 Sarmakovo   18/02/2011 (01/03/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention     15651/13 09/02/2013 Ivan Timofeyevich Arkhipov 17/10/1945 09/02/2015 (Marina Aleksandrovna Arkhipova) Mayskiy Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov 10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 12/10/2012     Unenforced Strike out     Muayed Sultanovich Gedmishkhov 23/05/1957 Kuba-Taba   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 12/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Aleksey Dmitriyevich Dadonov 19/03/1951 28/04/2014 (Olga Alekseyevna Lopatina) Kotlyarevskaya   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 12/10/2012     Unenforced Strike out     Khasen Vladimirovich Zhuzhuyev 05/10/1964 Zolskoye   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 12/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Vladimir Andreyevich Kudritskiy 16/11/1954 Mayskiy   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 12/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Aleksandr Alekseyevich Larin 18/05/1957 Kotlyarevskaya   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 12/10/2012   27/02/2015 (loss of interest)   Unenforced Strike out     Nikolay Fedorovich Menyaylo 12/08/1951 Mayskiy   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 12/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Vladimir Abramovich Shpakov 15/09/1952 Kotlyarevskaya   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 12/10/2012   21/10/2015   Unenforced Strike out     Zhora Khasanovich Erzhibov 12/05/1953 Nartkala   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 12/10/2012 30/05/2013 24/08/2015 Enforced Strike out         18295/13 20/02/2013 Saladin Khautiyevich Taov 15/12/1950 Nalchik Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov 12/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 12/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Stanislav Sergeyevich Anosov 02/09/1954 Nalchik   12/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 12/10/2012 10/04/2014     24/08/2015 Enforced Strike out     Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Borisenko 25/03/1954 Katlyarevskaya   12/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 12/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Sergey Maratovich Magomedov 21/04/1954 Kashkhatau   12/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 12/10/2012 10/04/2014 24/08/2015 Enforced Strike out     Ruslan Khadisovich Misrokov 29/04/1968 Prokhladnyy   12/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 12/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Aleksandr Nikolayevich Sviridenko 16/07/1952 Nalchik   12/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 12/10/2012 10/04/2014 21/10/2015 Enforced Strike out     Sultan Batyrbiyevich Khamshokov 07/11/1968 Arik   12/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 12/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention     19142/13 22/02/2013 Khasym Yusupovich Bittirov 31/12/1956 Gerpegezh Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov 05/04/2011 (18/04/2011) 07/09/2012 20/11/2014   Enforced   No significant disadvantage   Aleksandr Mukharbiyevich Zrumov 14/04/1950 Nalchik   05/04/2011 (18/04/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Viktor Khazhmuratovich Kugotov 02/04/1956 Kamennomostskoye   05/04/2011 (18/04/2011) 07/09/2012   24/08/2015 Unenforced Strike out         19156/13 22/02/2013 Serezha Sharapiyevich Zholayev 05/11/1952 Novaya Balkariya Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov 12/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 10/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Zaurbi Bilyalovich Kardanov 11/11/1964 Kuba-Taba   12/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 10/10/2012   24/08/2015   Unenforced Strike out     Valeriy Mukhazhidovich Khagov 08/11/1951 Urozhaynoye   12/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 10/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Mukhamed Mukhametovich Kazbekov 13/02/1948 29/04/2013 (Mayya Lakhmanovna Kazbekova) Deyskoye   12/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 10/10/2012     Enforced Strike out     Mukhamed Matsovich Shabazov 20/07/1946 Tyrnyauz   12/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 10/10/2012   24/08/2015 Enforced, then reversed Enforced Strike out     Boris Sufiyanovich Nastuyev 17/04/1953 27/02/2013 (Zaynaf Abdullayevna Nastuyeva) Verkhnyaya Zhemtala   12/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 10/10/2012     Enforced Strike out     Khasan Safarbiyevich Gergov 10/06/1959 Nalchik   12/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 10/10/2012   21/10/2015 Enforced, then reversed Enforced Strike out     Anatoliy Semenovich Zavgorodniy 10/05/1935 Prokhladnyy   12/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 10/10/2012   24/08/2015 Unenforced Strike out     Gennadiy Mukhamedovich Shkhanukov 08/09/1954 Nalchik   12/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 10/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Khashaua Anibalovich Yemkuzhev 18/12/1955 Urozhaynoye   12/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 10/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Vladimir Petrovich Yepishin 27/09/1954 Terek   12/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 10/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Gissa Machrailovich Apikov 01/11/1966 Shalushka   12/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 10/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention     19161/13 14/02/2013 Auyes Khapitovich Tsirkhov 07/03/1953 Nalchik Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov 11/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 12/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Yuriy Alekseyevich Nekrasov 25/05/1951 Prokhladnyy   11/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 12/10/2012   24/08/2015   Unenforced Strike out     Nikolay Ivanovich Khrushchev 05/12/1926 Prokhladnyy   11/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 12/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Vasiliy Maksimovich Lashin 25/01/1939 Priblizhnaya   11/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 12/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Anatoliy Alekseyevich Varchenko 28/08/1941 Prokhladnyy   11/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 12/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Magarram Vali Ogly Nasibov 15/07/1939 Priblizhnaya   11/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 12/10/2012 13/06/2013 24/08/2015   Enforced Strike out     Vladimir Ivanovich Parshakov 16/03/1949 Prokhladnyy   11/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 12/10/2012 13/06/2013 24/08/2015   Enforced Strike out     Viktor Nikolayevich Yurchenko 25/07/1954 Primalkinskoye   11/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 12/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Vasiliy Alekseyevich Bobrovenko 22/04/1930 Prokhladnyy   11/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 12/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Vladimir Timofeyevich Savchenko 09/09/1939 Prokhladnyy   11/04/2011 (22/04/2011) 12/10/2012   24/08/2015 Unenforced Strike out         19398/13 13/02/2013 Murik Blitovich Boriyev 09/12/1955 Nalchik Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov 14/02/2011 (25/02/2011) 07/09/2012 13/06/2013 21/10/2015   Enforced Strike out     Anatoliy Adalgeriyevich Kumykov 25/05/1952 Baksan   14/02/2011 (25/02/2011) 07/09/2012 13/06/2013   Enforced   No significant disadvantage   Mukhazhid Mukhamedovich Organokov 04/12/1949 Baksan   14/02/2011 (25/02/2011) 07/09/2012 13/06/2013   Enforced   No significant disadvantage   Sergey Semenovich Panyakin 02/12/1954 Prokhladnyy   14/02/2011 (25/02/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Boris Timofeyevich Khokhlachev 11/03/1953 Nalchik   14/02/2011 (25/02/2011) 07/09/2012   24/08/2015 Unenforced Strike out       19408/13 14/02/2013 Nikolay Konstantinovich Apanasenko 25/11/1938 17/07/2013 (Lidiya Yevteyevna Neyevina) Mayskiy Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov 10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 12/10/2012   24/08/2015 Unenforced Strike out     Oleg Valentinovich Volodin 28/08/1968 Mayskiy   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 12/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Viktor Vladimirovich Glybin 22/08/1951 Nalchik   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 12/10/2012     Enforced but then reversed     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Viktor Ivanovich Klochkov 15/01/1950 Prokhladnyy   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 12/10/2012   24/08/2015   Unenforced Strike out     Viktor Petrovich Likhtinov 25/04/1952 Mayskiy   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 12/10/2012   21/10/2015   Unenforced Strike out     Amir Musarbiyevich Pshigusov 01/12/1957 Zaragizh   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 12/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Khasan Kilchukovich Sizhazhev 10/12/1949 Tyrnyauz   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 12/10/2012   24/08/2015   Unenforced Strike out     Nikolay Grigoryevich Chikalenko 08/03/1955 Kotlyarevskaya   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 12/10/2012     Enforced but then reversed     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Timosha Khazhpagovich Shadov 20/07/1956 Tambovskoye   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 12/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention   19549/13 11/02/2013 Igor Grigoryevich Gredasov 23/12/1946 Kashkhatau Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov 10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 10/10/2012 16/05/2013   Enforced   No significant disadvantage   Boris Ivanovich Degtyarenko 09/02/1940 Yekaterinogradskaya   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 10/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Khamid Bubovich Kardanov 23/12/1954 Zalukokoazhe   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 10/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Yaroslav Yaroslavovich Morsin 04/08/1965 Mayskiy   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 10/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Nikolay Petrovich Potapkin 25/11/1954 Nalchik   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 10/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Semochkin 26/07/1954 Priblizhnaya   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 10/10/2012 16/05/2013   Enforced   No significant disadvantage   Viktor Gennadyevich Shvedov 24/05/1954 Prokhladnyy   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 10/10/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Igor Aleksandrovich Yurlov 20/06/1965 Nalchik   10/03/2011 (22/03/2011) 10/10/2012   24/08/2015 Unenforced Strike out   Violation of Article 6 of the Convention   19687/13 11/02/2013 Khusen Mazanovich Aybazov 28/02/1948 Krem-Konstantinovskoye Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov 04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012 13/06/2013 24/08/2015   Enforced Strike out   Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Kharun Satyvaldyyevich Gyzyyev 01/09/1956 Kashkhatau   04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012 13/06/2013   Enforced   No significant disadvantage   Aleksandr Viktorovich Kostenko 18/11/1965 Baksan   04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Zhamal Zhapayevich Kulbayev 24/01/1951 Kashkhatau   04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Dmitriy Anatolyevich Minin 19/05/1955 Priblizhnaya   04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Mustafir Muradinovich Osmanov 11/05/1956 Kendelen   04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012 13/06/2013 14/11/2015 Loss of interest   Enforced Strike out     Aleksandr Nikolayevich Finogenov 27/02/1953 25/02/2015 (Lyudmila Konstantinovna Finogenova) Mayskiy   04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced Strike out       19697/13 11/02/2013 Viktor Ivanovich Bidak 21/11/1950 Prokhladnyy Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov 04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Vladimir Aleksandrovich Budnikov 18/05/1957 Prokhladnyy   04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Anatoliy Khambiyevich Dokhov 18/10/1954 Zhemtala   04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012 30/05/2013     Enforced   No significant disadvantage   Khazhmurat Yakhyayevich Dzhankulayev 19/08/1966 Terek   04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012 30/05/2013 24/08/2015 Enforced Strike out     Nikolay Mikhaylovich Mukozhev 06/03/1966 Terek   04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Alisag Mukhamedovich Takhushev 04/08/1953 Terek   04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Aleksandr Nikolayevich Stepanenko 27/02/1957 Prokhladnyy   04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Vyacheslav Anibalovich Tsirkhov 06/02/1966 Beloglinskoye   04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention   19722/13 13/02/2013 Mutalis Mikhaylovich Alkhasov 18/10/1967 Atazhukina Magamed Saltanmuratovich Abubakarov 04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012   24/08/2015 Unenforced Strike out     Khyzyr Khadzhimuratovich Kabardokov 12/08/1954 Nalchik   04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012 20/11/2014   Enforced   No significant disadvantage   Anatoliy Talevich Kongapshev 30/01/1951 Karagach   04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Aleksandr Nikolayevich Plakhov 01/06/1949 Prokhladnyy   04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012   24/08/2015 Unenforced Strike out     Vasiliy Ilyich Strizhak 13/07/1954 Prokhladnyy   04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced     Violation of Article 6 of the Convention Akhmet Khasultanovich Kharsiyev 02/01/1955 Babugent   04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012 20/11/2014   Enforced   No significant disadvantage   Makhamadzhan Narbayevich Khaynazarov 01/05/1954 Kashkhatau   04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012   Enforced but then reversed 24/08/2015   Unenforced Strike out     Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Chernyshov 03/12/1949 Prokhladnyy   04/04/2011 (15/04/2011) 07/09/2012     Unenforced Strike out     Nikolay Khadin