CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 novembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 17 November 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no 47737/10 Vladimir Sayakhatdinovich SHAYKHATAROV against Russia and 2 other applications STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are Russian nationals. A.     The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. By a decree of the President of Russia dated 4 September 2000, Ms G. was appointed as a judge of the Syktyvkar Town Court for a period of three years. On an unspecified date and for unknown reasons, she retired. It appears that in November 2009 G., at the time a retired judge, was recalled to judicial service as acting justice of the peace in the Kutuzovskiy District of the Komi Republic. On 17 March 2010 the Judicial Board of the Komi Republic issued a favourable report concerning Judge G.’s continuing her judicial service, this time as acting justice of the peace of the Vylgortskiy District. On 8   April 2010 the acting President of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic appointed Judge G. as acting justice of the peace of the Vylgortskiy District.   1.     Application no.   47737/10 , lodged on 29   July 2010 by Vladimir Sayakhatdinovich Shaykhatarov, who was born on 14   February 1954 and lives in Syktyvkar. By a judgment of 22 June 2010 Judge G. convicted the applicant of an administrative offence under Article 12.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences and sentenced him to fifteen days’ administrative detention. On 6   July 2010 she also convicted the applicant of another offence. The applicant decided not to lodge appeals against the above judgments since the Syktyvkar District Court, acting as a court of appeal in another five cases he had been involved in (first-instance judgments of 4 June   2010 and related appeal decisions dated 24 and 30 June 2010), had already rejected the arguments relating to Judge G.’s authority to examine cases because, as required by section 7.1 of the Judicial Status Act the decision to recall Judge G. to judicial service “had been properly taken by the president of the higher court”.   2.     Application no.   53466/10, lodged on 22   July 2010 by Valentina Nikolayevna Lodygina, who was born on 29   November 1956 and lives in Syktyvkar. In December 2009 the applicant brought a civil case before the justice of the peace of Kutuzovskiy district in the Komi Republic. By a judgment of 24 December 2009, Judge G. rejected the applicant’s claims. The applicant appealed, indicating that Judge G. could not lawfully administer justice pursuant to the constitutional ruling of 16   July 2009 (see “Relevant domestic law and practice”). On 23 April 2010 the Syktyvkar Town Court upheld the judgment. As regards the applicant’s argument, the appeal court held that “there [were] no reasons to conclude that the composition of the trial court [had been] unlawful”.   3.     Application no.   61884/10 , lodged on 7   October 2010 by Ruslan Gaptelkhamitovich Valiyev, who was born on 26   June 1981 and lives in Syktyvkar. By two judgments dated 13 July 2010 Judge G. convicted the applicant of two administrative offences. The applicant appealed, arguing, inter alia , that Judge G.’s recall to judicial service could not have been lawfully authorised by the president of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic since the Syktyvkar District Court had been the “higher court” within the meaning of section 7.1 of the Judicial Status Act vis-à-vis her justice of the peace appointments. On 6 August 2010 the District Court upheld the judgments, stating that “the recall to judicial service had to be authorised by the president of the higher court; it was so done by the acting President of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic on 8 April 2010”. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice Section 7.1 of the Judicial Status Act (Federal Law no. 3132-1 of 26   June 1992) provided at the material time that it was permissible to recall to judicial service a retired judge for a one-year period. Such a recall had to be authorised by the president of a higher court ( вышестоящий суд ), following approval by the Judicial Board. In its ruling no. 16-P of 16 July 2009 the Constitutional Court of Russia declared this provision incompatible with the Constitution in so far as it had been interpreted and applied in a manner allowing the recall to judicial service of retired judges whose judicial status had expired (or had been terminated) at the end of the initial period of appointment without subsequently being appointed for an unlimited duration. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that their cases were not examined by a “tribunal established by law”. The applicant in application no. 53466/10 also complains that the related argument received no adequate reply on the part of the appeal court in his case. QUESTIONS 1.     Were the applicants’ cases examined by a tribunal “established by law”, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     In addition, as regards application no. 53466/10, did the appeal court deal in a proper manner with the arguments relating to this matter (see, by way of comparison, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR   1999 ‑ I)? If not, did this omission violate Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?