CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 mai 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   414 26.5.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT BATSANINA v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Batsanina v. Russia (application no. 3932/02). The case concerned Ms   Batsanina’s complaint about the unfairness of civil proceedings related to a dispute over a flat granted to her husband by his employer and, in particular, that those proceedings were brought by the public prosecutor himself.   The Court held by six votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the prosecutor’s interference in the civil proceedings   having been justified in the circumstances of the case.   The Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the authorities’ failure to inform Ms Batsanina of the appeal hearing.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Ms Batsanina 1,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   30 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in English .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Svetlana Batsanina, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Gelendzhik (Russia). Her husband, a staff member of the State-owned Oceanology Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, was placed in 1977 on a waiting list to receive housing. In August 1998 he was on the top of that list. In order to obtain a larger flat from the Institute, it was agreed that Ms Batsanina would transfer her title to her own flat to the Institute. In December 1998 she and the Institute signed an exchange agreement to that effect, however, the Institute subsequently discovered that she had sold her old flat in March 1998.   The Gelendzhik town prosecutor, acting on behalf of the Institute and the person who had been allocated the applicant’s flat (a Mr M), brought proceedings against Ms Batsanina and her husband to have the exchange agreement invalidated and to evict the applicant’s family from the flat granted to her husband.   Ms Batsanina’s husband brought a counter-claim seeking the acknowledgement of his right to the new flat received from the Institute.   In June 2001 the Town Court granted the public prosecutor’s claim and later the same month it dismissed the counter-claim in a separate judgment. Ms Batsanina appealed; the appeal court upheld both judgments.   The prosecutor was present at the appeal hearing which took place on 16 August 2001.   There was no written proof that Ms Batsanina received any summons for that hearing. In January 2003 the Supreme Court refused to initiate supervisory proceedings in respect of the above judgments. It rejected, among other things, Ms Batsanina’s complaint about not having been notified of the appeal hearing, noting that the parties had been informed about it.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 January 2002 and was examined together for admissibility and merits.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andora), President , Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Sweden), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Luis López Guerra (Spain), judges , and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar ,   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Ms   Batsanina complained of the prosecutor having brought proceedings both on behalf of the State and of a private person, and of her not having been informed of the appeal hearing of 16   August 2001.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 §1 (proceedings brought by the public prosecutor)   The Court found that the public prosecutor had acted in the public interest. His decision had been based on the relevant Russian law at the time, according to which he had discretion to bring proceedings depending on the particular circumstances of the case. The Court found that the fact that the prosecutor had brought the civil proceedings had not influenced the civil court unduly. In addition, having been legally represented, Ms Batsanina and her husband had had the possibility to defend their case before the domestic courts effectively. The Court held, therefore, that there had been no violation of Article 6 §1 as the two contending parties – the Oceanology Institute and Ms Batsanina – had been in an equal position to present their case.   Article 6 § 1 (non-participation in the appeal hearing)   The Court noted that the authorities had submitted no proof that Ms Batsanina had been notified of the appeal hearing. Although the Government had submitted that the relevant registers had allegedly been destroyed, it had not specified on what legal basis. It had likewise not produced a certificate confirming the act of destruction of the registers after the expiry of the period authorised by law. Nor was it mentioned in the appeal judgment that it had been verified whether Ms Batsanina had effectively been informed of that hearing. The Court concluded, therefore, that she had not been given an opportunity to attend the appeal hearing and plead her case, in violation of her right to a fair hearing under Article   6   §   1.     Judge Gyulumyan expressed a partly dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.