Last Updated on November 10, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF DYAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 79217/17 and 4 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 November 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Dyakov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 October 2022,
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 Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
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 of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
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 § 1of the Convention
6. The applicants complained of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 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.”
7. The relevant principles of the Court’s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention can be found in the leading case of Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§ 51-57, 20 September 2016, with further references). In that case the Court assessed the national rules of administrative procedure and concluded that the statutory requirement 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.
8. Having examined all the material submitted to it and having dismissed the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Smadikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 10810/15, 31 January 2017), the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of the complaints in the present case.
9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
10. 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.”
11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Kuratov and Others v. Russia [Committee],nos. 24377/15 and 2 others, 22 October 2019), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
12. The Court further 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 lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence 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 10 November 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
____________
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings)
| No. | Application no.
Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Year of birth |
Representative’s name and location | Penalty | Date of final domestic decision
Name of court |
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1] |
| 1. | 79217/17
03/11/2017 |
Oleg Vladimirovich DYAKOV
1987 |
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow |
fine ofRUB 10,000 | 03/08/2017
Lipetsk Regional Court |
1,000 |
| 2. | 79254/17
30/10/2017 |
Viktor Sergeyevich BOCHKAREV
1991 |
Kulakov Yevgeniy Valeryevich
Arkhangelsk |
suspension of the driving licence for 1 year | 20/06/2017
Military Court of the Northern Navy |
1,000 |
| 3. | 41197/19
25/07/2019 |
Mikayil Gulam ogly SADYGOV
1957 |
Okulov Anton Anatolyevich
Kirov |
fine ofRUB 30,000,
suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 6 months |
15/01/2019
Novovyatskiy District Court of Kirov (the applicant and his lawyer were not present at the appeal hearing; they received a copy of the judgment on 25/01/2019) |
1,000 |
| 4. | 36055/20
25/07/2020 |
Svetlana Aleksandrovna PRIKAZCHIKOVA
1980 |
Vologin Aleksey Borisovich
Volsk |
fine ofRUB 30,000,
suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 6 months |
02/07/2020
Volskiy District Court of the Saratov Region |
1,000 |
| 5. | 37401/20
24/07/2020 |
Viktor Nikolayevich KHAPKIN
1987 |
Kulakov Yevgeniy Valeryevich
Arkhangelsk |
fine ofRUB 30,000,
suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 6 months |
30/06/2020
Isakogorskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk |
1,000 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply