Last Updated on April 27, 2019 by LawEuro
Communicated on 19 March 2019
THIRD SECTION
Applications nos. 56131/14 and 30973/11
Yelena Valeryevna PROKHOROVA against Russia
and Vladimir Alekseyevich TUMANOV against Russia
lodged on 23 November 2008 and 15 April 2011 respectively
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant in the first case, Ms Yelena Valeryevna Prokhorova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Kstovo, the Nizhniy Novgorod region.
2. The applicant in the second case, Mr Vladimir Alekseyevich Tumanov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1941 and lives in Astrakhan.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. Application of Ms Prokhorova
(a) First set of proceedings
3. In February 2007 the applicant Ms Prokhorova suffered a foot injury at work. She brought proceedings seeking compensation for damages. On 31 October 2008 the Kstovo Town Court partially found for the applicant, awarding her 10,000 roubles in non‑pecuniary damages, and dismissed the remainder of her claims. It read out the operative part of its judgment.
4. According to the applicant, no access to the Kstovo town courthouse was given to persons other than those who had court summonses and passports. The opening hours were from 8 a.m. until 10 a.m. for the town residents and until midday for other visitors.
5. The applicant appealed against the judgment, complaining, inter alia, that only its operative part had been read out at the hearing. On 3 February 2009 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court dismissed her appeal and upheld the judgment, stating that there were no breaches of the substantive and procedural law which would require the quashing of the judgment. The Regional Court read out the operative part of its judgment.
6. According to the applicant, no access to the courtroom in the regional courthouse was given to persons not participating in the hearing in her case. Court bailiffs checked passports of all persons participating in the proceedings before letting them in.
(b) Second set of proceedings
7. In February 2008 the applicant was dismissed. She brought proceedings against her former employer seeking reinstatement at work and compensation for damages. On 16 April 2008 the Kstovo Town Court dismissed her claims. On 24 June 2008 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court dismissed her appeal against the Town Court’s judgment.
8. According to the applicant, both courts read out only the operative parts of their judgments at the hearings, and members of the public had no access to the premises of those courts. Courtroom no. 10 at the Town Court, in which the hearing took place, was small, eight out of sixteen existing sitting places were occupied by boxes and there was no room for the public. No members of the public were allowed to courtroom no. 48 at the Regional Court, where an additional passport control was organised for those participating in the hearing.
2. Application of Mr Tumanov
9. The applicant Mr Tumanov brought the following proceedings in consumer disputes.
10. Proceedings against the federal state unitary enterprise “Post of Russia” and its Astrakhan branch ended with a judgment of 25 November 2010 of the Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan which granted his claims partially and awarded him damages. On 29 December 2010 the Astrakhan Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
11. Proceedings against communal services providers operating in Astrakhan ended with a judgment of 6 December 2010 of the Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan which granted his claims partially and awarded him damages. On 2 February 2011 the Astrakhan Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
12. Proceedings against an internet service provider ended with a judgment of 7 October 2011 of the Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan which dismissed his claims. On 16 November 2011 the Astrakhan Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
13. In 2011 the applicant underwent a medical examination by a number of specialist doctors at town clinic no. 5 for obtaining a driving licence. He disagreed, inter alia, with additional fees which he had to pay for some examinations, including for a conclusion by a psychiatrist from the Regional Clinical Psychiatric Hospital in respect of his fitness to drive. He brought proceedings against medical institutions concerned, claiming damages. On 4 July 2011 the Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan granted his claims in a part concerning the Regional Clinical Psychiatric Hospital and rejected the remaining claims. On 24 August 2011 the Astrakhan Regional Court quashed the judgment and ordered a fresh examination of the case. On 18 November 2011 the Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan dismissed his claims. On 11 April 2012 the Astrakhan Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment of 18 November 2011 on the applicant’s appeal.
14. According to the applicant, members of the public had no access to the hearings held in his cases. Only those summoned by the courts were allowed to enter the courtrooms, which in any event had no space for the public. The applicant’s complaints to the Astrakhan Regional Court concerning the lack of public access to the court hearings were left unanswered. The instruction on the public access to the Astrakhan Regional Court approved on 28 May 2007 by joint order of the Regional Court and the Bailiffs’ Service no. 59 s/d / 268-sp (not registered by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation) authorised court bailiffs to deny access to the courthouse to individuals who were not summoned by the court to participate in hearings.
B. Relevant domestic law
15. Under Article 12 of Federal Law no. 262-FZ of 22 December 2008 on Access to Information on the Functioning of Courts in the Russian Federation (Об обеспечении доступа к информации о деятельности судов в Российской Федерации), which came into force on 1 July 2010, individuals have a right to be present at an open court hearing. Their access to courtrooms and courthouses is regulated by rules of courts or other regulations on the internal functioning of courts.
16. The publicity of the administration of justice is ensured by the possibility to be present at an open court hearing for persons who do not participate in proceedings and journalists (Ruling no. 35 of 13 December 2012 by the Plenary Supreme Court of the Russian Federation). Holding open hearings in rooms which cannot accommodate persons who do not participate in proceedings and journalists is not permitted.
17. Visitors are allowed in courts during working hours after an identity check (paragraph 5.1 of model internal regulations for courts approved by resolution no. 101 of 18 April 2003 of the Federal Council of Judges, declared compatible with the publicity of court hearings by the Supreme Court’s decision of 7 April 2006, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court’s Cassational Chamber on 6 July 2006).
18. The relevant domestic law concerning the public pronouncement of judgments is summarised in Malmberg and Others v. Russia, nos. 23045/05 and 3 others, §§ 30-41, 15 January 2015.
COMPLAINTS
19. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the public had no access to the hearings in their cases at both levels of jurisdiction.
20. The applicant Ms Prokhorova also complains under the same provision of the Convention that only the operative parts of the judgments in her cases were publicly pronounced.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the applicants’ allegations that persons who were not summoned by courts to participate in hearings were not allowed in the courthouses and the courtrooms in which the hearings in the applicants’ cases were held, has there been a public hearing at both levels of jurisdiction in the proceedings brought by the applicants, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Was the exclusion of the public in the present cases “strictly necessary”, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Having regard to the applicants’ allegations that the courtrooms were too small or had insufficient number of seats, were the hearings in the applicants’ cases held in courtrooms which were fit for accommodating the public (information concerning the size of the courtroom, the number of seats for participants to proceedings and for members of the public and the courtroom layout should be included)?
3. The Government are further invited to submit (i) records of all the hearings held in the applicants’ cases at both levels of jurisdiction (except for records submitted by the applicants); and (ii) information concerning regulations and practice in respect of the opening hours and the public access to the Kstovo Town Court, the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, the Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan and the Astrakhan Regional Court (including the instruction of 28 May 2007, see paragraph 14 of the statement of facts) at the relevant time.
4. Were judgments of the courts of both levels of jurisdiction in the proceedings brought by Ms Prokhorova pronounced publicly, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ryakib Biryukov v. Russia, no. 14810/02, ECHR 2008; and Malmberg and Others v. Russia, nos. 23045/05 and 3 others, 15 January 2015)?
Leave a Reply