CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 février 2022

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 259 February 2022 Kramareva v. Russia - 4418/18 Judgment 1.2.2022 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Fair balance between parties in, and adversarial nature of, civil proceedings not upset by participation of a prosecutor, independent officer with no special powers under domestic law: no violation Facts – The applicant brought proceedings against a company, as her previous employer, after the termination of her employment contract. She asked the court to declare the termination unlawful and to reinstate her; to award her compensation for lost earnings and non-pecuniary damage; and for the company to provide her with copies of some work-related documents. A prosecutor was present at the hearing. At the end of the hearing, he gave an opinion that the applicant’s claims should be allowed in part and the remainder dismissed. The District Court allowed the applicant’s claims relating to the provision of document copies and award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, but found that the termination of the applicant’s employment contract had been lawful and dismissed the remainder of the claims. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully; during the appeal hearing, the prosecutor supported the judgment of the District Court. Law – Article 6 § 1: The crux of the applicant’s complaints was the fact of the prosecutor’s participation in the proceedings. The Court noted the existence of various approaches to the examination of that issue in the case-law, as well as the variety of models of prosecutorial participation in civil proceedings across Europe. The existing approaches were neither irreconcilable, nor did they call for any general pronouncement of the compatibility of any model of prosecutorial intervention in civil cases with the requirements of Article 6. The Russian civil procedural law afforded the parties an opportunity to submit their written or oral comments after the prosecutor’s intervention in the proceedings. Under Russian domestic law, the prosecutor was an independent officer with legal expertise and his or her participation in certain categories of civil cases was provided for by law, if the protection of the civil rights and lawful interests of society or the State so required. The prosecutor’s opinion could not predetermine the position of a court in a case and his or her participation as such did not prevent the parties from fully exercising their rights; nor did it upset the balance between the parties or infringe the principle of adversarial procedure. They enjoyed no special powers in civil proceedings, did not attend courts’ deliberations and their opinions were public and open for comments. It was most appropriate in the present case to follow the approach flowing from the general principles common to the Court’s case-law on participation of independent legal officers in civil proceedings, in the light of specific considerations previously identified in Russian cases. Accordingly, the Court had to ascertain whether, in view of the prosecutor’s participation, the principles of equality of arms and of adversarial proceedings had been adequately safeguarded in the case at hand and, therefore, whether the “fair balance” that ought to prevail between the parties had been respected. In the instant case, the prosecutor had given an opinion that the applicant’s reinstatement claim should be dismissed as lacking basis in domestic law. Nothing proved that in doing so the prosecutor had acted as the applicant’s adversary in the proceedings or acted ultra vires in securing the public interest. The applicant’s argument that the prosecutor’s opinion had unduly influenced the courts, had special significance over and above submissions of the parties, and that the courts had been bound by that opinion, had been pure speculation and not supported by any specific and tangible proof. Those arguments had not been supported by any reference to relevant legal provisions either. There were therefore no grounds to infer any divergence from the principle of equality of arms in the present case. Moreover, in line with the principle of adversarial proceedings, the prosecutor’s opinion had been made public and been put on record, the parties had known of its contents and, in law and in practice, had had an effective opportunity to make submissions in reply to it. In the absence of further arguments by the applicant, there was no grounds to conclude that the opinion had unduly influenced the courts, prevented the applicant from bringing an effective defence or otherwise upset the fair balance between the parties. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to one). (See also Menchinskaya v. Russia , 42454/02, 15 January 2009; Batsanina v.   Russia , 3932/02, 26 May 2009, Legal Summary ; Gruba and Others v. Russia , 66180/09 et al., 6 July 2021, Legal Summary )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes