THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KURATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 24377/15 and 2 others – see appended list)

JUDGMENT
 

This version was rectified on 1 July 2020

under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court

STRASBOURG

22 October 2019

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

In the case of Kuratov and Others v. Russia,

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

 Alena Poláčková, President,
 Dmitry Dedov,
 Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 1 October 2019,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in three applications (nos. 24377/15, 59025/16 and 61429/16) 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 three Russian nationals. Their details appear in Appendix I below.

2.  Mr Sokolov (application no. 61429/16) was represented by Ms I. Biryukova, a lawyer practising in Podolsk, Moscow Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr M. Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.

3.  On 8 February 2018 notice of the complaints concerning alleged impartiality of the tribunal and courts’ failure to examine witnesses was given to the Government and the remainder of the applications was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.

THE FACTS

1. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4.  The applicants were found liable for administrative offences. The courts heard the matter in the absence of a prosecuting party. The details pertaining to each application are summed up in Appendix II below.

2. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

5.  For a summary of the relevant domestic provisions and practice, see the case of Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§ 22-37, 20 September 2016).

THE LAW

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

6.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION

7.  The applicants complained that the tribunal which had examined their cases had not been impartial. Mr Kuratov (application no. 24377/15) also alleged that he had not had sufficient time to prepare his defence. Mr Tyutya (application no. 59025/16) complained that the same judge had considered both cases against him. Mr Sokolov (application no. 61429/16) claimed that he had been unable to question the police officers who had prepared an administrative case against him. The applicants relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:

“1.  In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

...

3.  Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

...

(b)  to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;

(c)  to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

(d)  to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him[.]”

8.  The Government submitted that argument the facts complained of by the applicants did not disclose the violations alleged. When examining the administrative cases against the applicants, the national courts had ensured the respect of the principle of objective impartiality. The fact that the prosecution had been absent should not be construed to the effect that the function of the prosecution had been taken over by the courts. The justice of the peace in charge of each case had examined the evidence gathered by law‑enforcement, assessed its admissibility, veracity and relevance. It had been incumbent on the courts to respect the presumption of innocence and to interpret the doubt to the benefit of the defendants. The proceedings had been truly adversarial and the applicants had had ample opportunity to present their case to the court and to challenge the administrative materials submitted by the police. As to Mr Kuratov’s (application no. 24377/15) allegations, the Government submitted that it had been open to the applicant to ask the judge for adjournment, had he been unable to prepare for his defence. The Government did not comment on Mr Tyutya’s (application no. 59025/16) complaint that the same judge had considered both cases against him. Lastly, the Government submitted that it had not been necessary for Mr Sokolov (application no. 61429/16) to confront the police officers in court. The evidence examined by the justice of the peace had been sufficient to verify whether the applicant had been guilty or innocent.

9.  The applicants maintained their complaints.

1. Admissibility

10.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits
   1. Whether the case was considered by an impartial tribunal

General principles

11.  The general principles concerning the objective impartiality are well established in the Court’s case-law and have been recently summarised in a number of cases (see, for example, Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 51-57, 20 September 2016).

2. Application of the general principles

12.  The Court has already examined on a previous occasion a case which concerned an examination by Russian courts of an administrative offence. Having assessed the national rules of administrative procedure, it concluded that the statutory requirements allowing for the national judicial authorities to consider an administrative offence case which falls within the ambit of Article 6 of the Convention under its criminal limb, in the absence of a prosecuting authority, was incompatible with the principle of objective impartiality set out in Article 6 of the Convention (see, Karelin, cited above, §§ 60-84).

13.  Having examined the parties’ arguments and the materials submitted in the present case, the Court sees no reason to hold otherwise. It considers that, when examining the applicants’ cases, the courts carried the burden of presenting and supporting the accusation against them. Similarly to its findings in Karelin, the Court is unable to conclude that there were sufficient safeguards in place to exclude legitimate doubts as to the adverse effect the statutory procedure had on the courts’ impartiality. Lastly, it notes that the appeal proceedings have not remedied the deficiencies of the trial. Given the wide statutory scope of review on appeal, the absence of a prosecuting party in the appeal proceedings was a serious shortcoming (see, for the same reasoning, (see Yegorov and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 77208/16 and 4 others, § 14, 28 may 2019).

14.  The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in relation to the objective impartiality requirement.

3. The remaining complaints

15.  Regard being had to the Court’s findings in paragraphs 12-14 above, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine the remainder of the applicants’ grievances under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b)-(d) concerning alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him.

3. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

16.  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.”

17.  Mr Kuratov (application no. 24377/15) did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.

1. Damage

18.  Mr Tyutya (application no. 59025/16) claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Mr Sokolov (application no. 61429/16) claimed EUR 4,000 under that head.

19.  The Government considered Mr Tyutya’s (application no. 59025/16) claims excessive and unreasonable. They further submitted that no award should be made to either applicant.

20.  The Court awards each of the applicants, as indicated in paragraph 18 above, EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

2. Costs and expenses

21.  The applicants did not submit a claim for costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sum on that account.

3. Default interest

22.  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. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
4. Holds that it is not necessary to examine separately the remainder of the applicants’ grievances under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) – (d) of the Convention;
5. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay to Mr Tyutya (application no. 59025/16) and Mr Sokolov (application no. 61429/16), within three months EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) each, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 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;

6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 October 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Stephen Phillips  Alena Poláčková
 Registrar President

APPENDIX I

Details of the applications

APPENDIX II

Facts in respect of each application

[1] Rectified on 1 July 2020: the name was changed from Valeriy Vasilyevich TYUTYA to Vladimir Mikhaylovich TYUTYA