THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ISAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 20707/06 and 8 others – see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

25 April 2017

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Isayev and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Luis López Guerra, President,
 Dmitry Dedov,
 Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 28 March 2017,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in nine applications (nos. 20707/06, 29518/06, 39006/06, 7527/07, 7678/07, 18756/07, 36533/07, 46727/07 and 55639/07) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by nine Russian nationals (“the applicants”). The applicants’ names and the dates of their applications to the Court appear in the Appendix.

2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.

3.  On various dates (indicated in the Appendix) these complaints were communicated to the respondent Government.

THE FACTS

I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4.  All the applicants were party to civil proceedings in which the first‑instance and appeal courts found in their favour. These judgments became binding and enforceable but were subsequently quashed by the supervisory review courts on the ground of incorrect application of substantive law or incorrect assessment of evidence by lower courts (for more details see the Appendix).

II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

5.  The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure in force between 1 February 2003 and 7 January 2008 is summarised in Kot v. Russia (no. 20887/03, § 17, 18 January 2007).

THE LAW

I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

6.  In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of the Court, the Court decides to consider the applications in a single judgment, given their similar factual and legal background (see Kazakevich and 9 other “Army Pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 14290/03 and 9 others, § 15, 14 January 2010).

II.  THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE CONVENTION

7.  On 9 November and 7 December 2016, after unsuccessful friendly‑settlement negotiations, the Government submitted unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applicants. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications, in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

8.  In the declarations, the Government acknowledged that the quashing of the final judgments in the applicants’ favour had been in violation of Article 6 of the Convention and in the Strelkov case also in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They stated their readiness to pay Mr Strelkov 3,500 euros (EUR) and EUR 1,050 to each of the other applicants.

9.  The applicants failed to respond within the established time‑limits.

10.  The Court observes, on the one hand, that the Government explicitly acknowledged a violation of the Convention on account of the quashing by way of supervisory review of the binding and enforceable judgments in the applicants’ favour.

11.  On the other hand, the amount of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage proposed by the Government differs substantially from the amounts of compensation awarded to the applicants by the Court in virtually identical cases (see Gruzda v. Russia [Committee], no. 63833/09, § 23, 5 April 2016, and Kovalenko and Others, [Committee], nos. 36299/03 and 6 others, §§ 42-43, 8 December 2015).

12.  The Court cannot therefore accept that the compensation offered by the Government in respect of non-pecuniary, and in the Strelkov case in respect of non-pecuniary and pecuniary, damage constitutes adequate and sufficient redress for the violations of the applicants’ rights under the Convention (see Gorfunkel v. Russia, no. 42974/07, §§ 15-29, 19 September 2013). It follows that the Government’s declaration, while acknowledging the violations of the Convention, fails to ensure respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and thus compels the Court to continue its examination of the applications.

13.  That being so, the Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out under Article 37 of the Convention and will examine the admissibility and merits of the case.

III.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVETNTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF THE PROTOCOLE No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

14.  All the applicants complained about a violation of the principle of legal certainty on account of the quashing by way of supervisory review of binding and enforceable judgments in their favour. They invoked Article 6 of the Convention. In the Strelkov case the applicant in addition invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see the Appendix). The relevant parts of the aforementioned provisions read:

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law ...”

A.  Admissibility

15.  The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

B.  Merits

16.  The Court observes that it has already found numerous violations of the Convention on account of the quashing of binding and enforceable judgments by way of supervisory review under the Code of Civil Procedure, as in force at the material time (see Kot, cited above, § 29). Some of those violations were found in similar circumstances and similarly concerned the quashing of final domestic judgments making awards (see, among many other authorities, Kovalenko and Others, cited above, and Zelenkevich and Others v. Russia, [Committee], no. 14805/02, 20 June 2013). The Court does not see any reasons to reach a different conclusion in the present cases.

17.  Having examined all the materials before it, as well as paying attention to the Government’s acknowledgement of a violation of the applicants’ rights, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and a violation of the same Article combined with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in the case of Strelkov.

IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

18.  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.”

19.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Gruzda, cited above, and Kovalenko and Others, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award each applicant the sums indicated in the Appendix.

20.  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.  Rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out of the list;

3.  Declares, in respect of all the applications, the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the quashing by way of supervisory review of final domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour admissible;

4.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in the cases of Isayev, Baburkina, Grebenkina, Batina, Sutugina, Nitsiyevkaya, Moskvin and Kucherov and a violation of the same Article combined with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the case of Strelkov on account of the quashing by way of supervisory review of the final judgments in the applicants’ favour;

5.  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 25 April 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Fatoş Aracı Luis López Guerra
Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX