Last Updated on March 9, 2021 by LawEuro
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SOKIRYANSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 4505/08)
JUDGMENT
(Revision)
STRASBOURG
9 March 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sokiryanskaya and Others v. Russia (request for revision of the judgment of 23 June 2020),
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Georges Ravarani, President,
Darian Pavli,
Anja Seibert-Fohr, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 June 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 4505/08) 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 six Russian nationals, including Mr Albert SultanovichKhantygov (“the sixth applicant”).
2. In a judgment delivered on 23 June 2020, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants on account of the dispersal of a public assembly and the arrest of four of the applicants. The Court also found a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the arrest and subsequent detention of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants.
3. In the above-mentioned judgment, the Court decided to award the first and the second applicants 4,000 euros (EUR) each, and the third to sixth applicants EUR 5,000 each for non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that might be chargeable to them on those amounts. The Court also awarded all the applicants EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses jointly, plus any tax that might be chargeable on that amount. The award in respect of costs and expenses was to be paid into the representative’s bank account, as indicated by the applicants. The Court dismissed the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
4. On 29 June 2020 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that they had learned that the sixth applicant had died on 23 March 2019 and that his wife, Ms Tamara KhasultanovnaAmirkhanova (“Ms Amirkhanova”) wished to pursue the application. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.
5. On 15 September 2020 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to invite the Government to submit any observations. Those observations were received on 16 October 2020.
THE LAW
THE REQUEST FOR REVISION
6. The applicants’ representative requested revision of the judgment of 23 June 2020, which they had been unable to have executed because the sixth applicant had died before the judgment had been adopted. Ms Amirkhanova, who wished to maintain the case in her late husband’s stead, was the heir eligible to receive the sums awarded to the deceased.
7. The Government stated that neither the sixth applicant’s heir nor his representative had promptly informed the Court of his demise or provided any plausible explanation for their failure to do so. The Government therefore asked the Court to exclude the order to pay compensation for non‑pecuniary damage to the sixth applicant from the relevant parts of the judgment.
8. The Court observes that Ms Amirkhanova was the wife of the deceased sixth applicant. According to the inheritance certificate submitted by the applicants’ representative, she is his sole heir. The Court therefore considers that Ms Amirkhanova has standing to receive the sum awarded in the judgment in her deceased husband’s stead.
9. As regards the Government’s submissions concerning Ms Amirkhanova’s failure to inform the Court of the sixth applicant’s death at an earlier date, the Court has on several occasions rejected similar arguments finding that the failure to inform had not hampered its examination of the case (see, among many examples, Benzer and Others v. Turkey (revision), no. 23502/06, § 13, 13 January 2015 and Nadtoka v. Russia (no. 2) (revision), no. 29097/08, § 9, 6 October 2020). The Court does not see any reason to depart from this approach in the present case.
10. The Court therefore considers that the judgment of 23 June 2020 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, the relevant parts of which provide:
“A party may, in the event of the discovery of a fact which might by its nature have a decisive influence and which, when a judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court and could not reasonably have been known to that party, request the Court … to revise that judgment.
…”
11. It accordingly decides to award Ms Amirkhanova the amount it had previously awarded to the deceased sixth applicant, namely EUR 5,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
12. 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 revise its judgment of 23 June 2020 in so far as it concerns the claim made by the deceased sixth applicant, Mr Albert SultanovichKhantygov, under Article 41 of the Convention;
2. Holds, accordingly,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay Ms Tamara KhasultanovnaAmirkhanova, the heir of Mr Albert SultanovichKhantygov, within three months, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) 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, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 9 March 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Olga Chernishova Georges Ravarani
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply