11127/08;4100/11;8795/11;25158/11;27653/11;12247/12;31488/12;32000/12

THIRD SECTION       CASE OF POBEREZHYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Application no. 11127/08 and 7 others - see appended list)                       JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   6 April 2017           This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Poberezhyev 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 Karen Reid, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 16 March 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.  The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS 3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.  The applicants complained that they had been denied an opportunity to appear in person before the court in the civil proceedings to which they were parties. THE LAW I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.  The applicants complained that their right to a fair hearing had been breached on account of the domestic courts’ refusal of their requests to appear in court. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” 7.  The Court reiterates that the applicants, detainees at the time of the events, were not afforded an opportunity to attend hearings in civil proceedings to which they were parties. The details of those domestic proceedings are indicated in the appended table. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to present one’s case effectively before the court and to enjoy equality of arms with the opposing side, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, §§ 59-60, ECHR 2005-II). The Court’s analysis of an alleged violation of the right to a fair trial in respect of cases where incarcerated applicants complain about their absence from hearings in civil proceedings includes the following elements: examination of the manner in which domestic courts assessed the question whether the nature of the dispute required the applicants’ personal presence and determination whether domestic courts put in place any procedural arrangements aiming at guaranteeing their effective participation in the proceedings (see Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, § 48, 16 February 2016). 8.  In the leading case of Yevdokimov and Others, cited above, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the domestic courts deprived the applicants of the opportunity to present their cases effectively and failed to meet their obligation to ensure respect for the principle of a fair trial. 10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 11.  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.” 12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 13.  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 these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the applicant’s absence from civil proceedings;   4.  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 6 April 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Karen Reid Luis López Guerra Registrar President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (applicant’s absence from civil proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Nature of the dispute Final decision First-instance hearing date Court Appeal hearing date Court Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]   11127/08 30/01/2008 Aleksandr Vadimovich Poberezhyev 06/09/1974 non-pecuniary damages for poor conditions of detention 18/07/2007   Tverskoy District Court of Moscow 13/12/2007   Moscow City Court 1,500   4100/11 15/12/2010 Vladimir Vladimirovich Bulatov 27/03/1974 non-pecuniary damages for solitary confinement 08/06/2011   Ulyanovskiy District Court of the Ulyanovsk region 20/09/2011   Ulyanovsk regional Court 1,500   8795/11 12/01/2011 Andrey Valeryevich Skryabin 05/05/1978 non-pecuniary damages for poor conditions of detention 04/08/2010   Slobodskiy District Court of the Kirov Region 25/11/2010   Kirov Regional Court 1,500   25158/11 16/03/2011 Mikhail Viktorovich Isakov 01/01/1985 non-pecuniary damages for conditions of detention and detention with an inmate suffering from tuberculosis 04/05/2011   Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic 24/11/2011   Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 1,500   27653/11 03/04/2011 Sergey Andreyevich Konstantinov 07/05/1987 post-conviction compensation claim introduced by the victims 04/06/2010   Sergiyev Posad Town Court of the Moscow Region 19/10/2010   Moscow Regional Court 1,500   12247/12 15/03/2010 Sergey Nikolayevich Andrianov 13/11/1979 non-pecuniary damages for poor conditions of detention 26/02/2009   Serpukhov Town Court of the Moscow Region 22/09/2009   Moscow Regional Court 1,500   31488/12 26/04/2012 Nikolay Nikolayevich Kokora 06/09/1965 non-pecuniary damages for poor conditions of detention 12/10/2011   Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd 25/01/2012   Volgograd Regional Court 1,500   32000/12 17/04/2012 Vladimir Vladimirovich Sidoruk 24/06/1965 tort claim for damages (both pecuniary and non‑pecuniary) 20/06/2011   Troitskiy District Court of the Chelyabinsk Region 10/10/2011   Chelyabinsk Regional Court 1,500     [1].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.