CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 12 avril 2018

.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 } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .sF66B8D08 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .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 } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s50B7D056 { width:182.94pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF BOZHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 17071/05 and 5 others - see appended list )                           JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   12 April 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bozhkov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 22 March 2018, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained that they had been denied an opportunity to appear in person before the court in the civil proceedings to which they were parties. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The Government submitted unilateral declarations in some applications which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue the examination of the cases (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003 ‑ VI). III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally that their right to a fair hearing had been breached on account of the domestic courts’ refusal of their requests to appear in court. They relied on Article   6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article   6   §   1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” 8.     The Court reiterates that the applicants, detainees at the time of the events, were not afforded an opportunity to attend hearings in civil proceedings to which they were parties. The details of those domestic proceedings are indicated in the appended table. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to present one’s case effectively before the court and to enjoy equality of arms with the opposing side, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Steel and Morris v.   the United Kingdom , no.   68416/01, §§   59-60, ECHR 2005-II). The Court’s analysis of an alleged violation of the right to a fair trial in respect of cases where incarcerated applicants complain about their absence from hearings in civil proceedings includes the following elements: examination of the manner in which domestic courts assessed the question whether the nature of the dispute required the applicants’ personal presence and determination whether domestic courts put in place any procedural arrangements aiming at guaranteeing their effective participation in the proceedings (see Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia , nos.   27236/05 and   10   others, §   48, 16   February 2016). 9.     In the leading case of Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos.   27236/05 and 10 others, 16 February 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.     Having examined all the material submitted to it and the objection of the Government concerning the application of the six-month rule in case no.   15622/09, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection raised in respect of applicator no.   15622/09 and considers that in the instant case the domestic courts deprived the applicants of the opportunity to present their cases effectively and failed to meet their obligation to ensure respect for the principle of a fair trial. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. IV.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     In application no. 15622/09, the applicant submitted another complaint which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22   May 2012, concerning the lack of speedy review of detention matters. V.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.     In applications nos.   17071/05, 15622/09, 18297/11 and 17115/15 the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 14.     The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. 15.     It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. VI.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.     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.” 17.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 18.     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 some applications out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declarations which they submitted;   3.     Declares the complaints concerning the applicants’ absence from civil proceedings and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible,   and the remainder of the applications nos.   17071/05, 15622/09, 18297/11 and 17115/15 inadmissible;   4.     Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the applicants’ absence from civil proceedings;   5.     Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);   6.     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 12 April 2018, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (applicant’s absence from civil proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Representative name and location Nature of the dispute   Final decision (as concerns the new Russian Code on Civil Procedure) First-instance hearing date Court Appeal hearing date Court Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     17071/05 22/03/2005 Sergey Aleksandrovich Bozhkov 28/07/1968 Misakyan Tumas Arsenovich   Moscow   Compensation for damage claim against detention authorities for a contamination with tuberculosis 02/11/2004   Vorkuta Town Court 07/02/2005   Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi   1,500     5951/08 09/01/2008 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Abramov 07/07/1956     Claim for non-pecuniary damage following a substantial delay in crediting his account by the correctional colony, with the amount paid following a prior court judgment in his favour.   02/10/2009   Artemovsk Town Court of the Primorye Region 27/01/2010   Primorye Regional Court   1,500     15622/09 20/02/2009   Yevgeniy Ivanovich Zhabutinskiy 17/07/1982     compensation for unlawful detention 10/02/2010   Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk 16/07/2010   Irkutsk Regional Court Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Appeal against 03/09/2008,   23/12/2008 and 19/03/2009 extension orders examined on 20/11/2008, 26/02/2009 and 27/05/2009, respectively   1,950     18297/11 11/02/2011 Vladimir Mikhaylovich Stepanenko 13/09/1967     Compensation for inadequate detention conditions 13/09/2012   Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk   28/01/2013   Krasnoyarsk Regional Court   1,500     17115/15 17/12/2015 Andrey Vitalyevich Mokin 07/11/1974     Challenging the actions of the colony administration concerning sending the correspondence 22/01/2015 Zavyalovskiy District Court of the Udmurtia Republic   10/08/2015   Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic   1,500     62983/16 23/09/2016 Ruslan Sergeyevich Pylayev 15/09/1976     Complaint about bailiffs’ actions and his eviction in his absence   Primorye Regional Court, 08/09/2016   28/04/2016   Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivostok 28/07/2016   Primorye Regional Court   1,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.