CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 septembre 2017

.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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .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 } .s48A25E51 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:5.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-5.4pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .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 } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; 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 } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s299B0C57 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:center; 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 } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 4 September 2017   THIRD SECTION Applications no. 11776/14 and no. 49027/16 Fakhri Alish Ogly ALIYEV against Russia and Valeriy Petrovich KLIMENKO against Russia (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are Russian nationals. The application numbers, the dates of lodging the applications, the applicants’ names and their personal details are set out in the appendix. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants were parties to civil proceedings initiated against them by various State authorities. 1. Application no. 11776/14 Aliyev v. Russia In 2007 the applicant rented a room and was registered in the apartment occupied by a long-term tenant under the social tenancy agreement. In 2009 the long-term tenant died. On 6 August 2012 the Nevskiy District office of the St   Petersburg administration initiated proceedings against the applicant, claiming that the apartment was owned by the State and that the applicant and his minor children would be evicted from the apartment and removed from the relevant register. On 27 September 2012 the applicant brought a counterclaim, acting, inter alia, on behalf of his children. He sought acknowledgement of the fact that he had been a member of the former tenant’s family and the conclusion of a social tenancy agreement in respect of the apartment in issue. On 22 April 2013 the Nevskiy District Court of St Petersburg ( Невский районный суд г. Санкт-Петербурга ) heard arguments from the plaintiff’s representative, the applicant and his representative, and the prosecutor. The court granted the action and dismissed the applicant’s counterclaim. On 10 September 2013 the St Petersburg City Court ( Санкт ‑ Петербургский городской суд ) heard arguments from the plaintiff’s representative, the applicant and his representative, and the public prosecutor. The latter argued that the first-instance judgment should be upheld. The court then upheld the first-instance judgment. On 12 December 2013 the City Court dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant. 2. Application no. 49027/16 Klimenko v. Russia On 16 April 2014 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant for negligence in the performance of his duties that had caused damage to the State budget. On 16 July 2014 the prosecution of the applicant was discontinued as a result of an amnesty. On 22 April 2015 the Abinsk District, Krasnodar Region prosecutor’s office brought an action against the applicant claiming compensation for the damage inflicted on the State budget. On 28 July 2015 the Seversk District Court of the Krasnodar Region ( Северский районный суд Краснодарского края ) heard the applicant and his representative, and the public prosecutor, and then dismissed the action. The public prosecutor appealed and on 8 October 2015 the Krasnodar Regional Court ( Краснодарский краевой суд ) heard the applicant and the prosecutor, who maintained the arguments given in the appeal statement and asked the court to overturn the first-instance judgment. The appellate court overturned the first-instance judgment and delivered a new decision in the case by which it fully granted the action. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which was dismissed on 22   December 2015 by the Regional Court. The applicant lodged a second appeal on points of law, claiming, inter alia, that a public prosecutor did not have the authority to deal with the flow of funds to the State budget and was therefore not eligible to act as a plaintiff. On 22   March   2016 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ( Верховный суд Российской Федерации ) dismissed the applicant’s claims. COMPLAINT The applicants complain that the participation of a prosecutor in the civil proceedings was contrary to Article 6   §   1 of the Convention as it undermined the principle of equality of arms. QUESTIONS to the parties 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6   §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the involvement of a prosecutor in these proceedings?   2.     Did the applicants exhaust the available and effective domestic remedies in respect of the prosecutor’s participation in the relevant proceedings? If not, what were the remedies they had at their disposal?   3.     What were the grounds in the domestic law and/or practice allowing for the prosecutor’s participation in the sets of proceedings in question?   4.     What were the reasons justifying the prosecutor’s participation in the proceedings?   5.     Did the domestic courts duly review the above-mentioned reasons having regard to the individual situation of each party to the proceedings? Did they consider the impact that any such individual situation might have on the equality of arms in the proceedings?     APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant’s name date of birth place of residence Represented by Final judgment   11776/14 30/01/2014 Fakhri Alish Ogly ALIYEV 27/08/1977 St Petersburg   Fedor Samuilovich LEMESHEV St Petersburg City Court, 12 December 2013   49027/16 11/08/2016 Valeriy Petrovich KLIMENKO 22/12/1949 Severskaya, Krasnodar Region   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 22 March 2016