CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 20 septembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; 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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION         CASE OF ANTIPIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 28590/11 and 3 others - see appended list )                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   20 September 2018           This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Antipin 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 30 August 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. In application no.   28590/11, the applicant 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.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     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:   “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” 7.     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). 8.     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. 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having considered the Government’s objections as to the application of six months and the exhaustion requirement (see Abramyan and Others v. Russia, nos.   38951/13 and 59611/13, 12 May 2015), 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 rejects the Government’s objections 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. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. III.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 11.     In the application no.   28590/11, the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 12.     The Court has examined the application 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. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. IV.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     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.” 14.     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. 15.     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.     Declares the complaints concerning the applicant’s absence from civil proceedings admissible   and the remainder of the application no.   28590/11 inadmissible;   3.     Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the applicant’s absence from civil proceedings;   4.     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 20 September 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’s name Date of birth   Nature of the dispute Final decision First-instance hearing date Court Appeal hearing date Court Amount awarded for non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     28590/11 11/04/2011       02/03/2012 Roman Grigoryevich Antipin 20/02/1977 proceedings related to unlawful actions of detention authorities, including their failure to ensure proper conditions of detention     proceedings related to the failure of State authorities to ensure the applicant’s rights, as a detainee, including his right to adequate conditions of detention 21/10/2010   Bratsk City Court     03/08/2011   Bratsk City Court 10/03/2011   Irkutsk Regional Court     08/12/2011   Irkutsk Regional Court 1,950     25511/16 16/08/2016 Andrey Vitalyevich Mokin 07/11/1974 challenging poor conditions of detention in pre-trial detention facility 29/07/2015   Industrialny District Court of Izhevsk 17/02/2016   Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic 1,500     6485/17 10/01/2017 Yuriy Aleksandrovich Khorov 16/03/1980 compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by negligent medical treatment, final decision - 20/07/2016, Supreme Court of Russia 17/09/2015   Central District Court of Kaliningrad 27/01/2016   Kaliningrad Regional Court 1,500     15353/17 31/12/2016 Igor Veniaminovich Leontyev 25/11/1965 proceedings under the Code of Administrative Procedure concerning the unlawfulness of the applicant’s placement in a punishment cell in view of his disability status 25/11/2015   Pechyory Town Court of the Komi Republic 09/06/2016   Supreme Court of the Komi Republic (received on 11/07/2016) 1,500   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.