Last Updated on May 2, 2019 by LawEuro
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SHAPKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 34248/05 and 2 others – see list appended)
JUDGMENT
(Revision)
STRASBOURG
18 December 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Shapkin and Others v. Russia, (request for revision of the judgment of 15 March 2016),
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
JolienSchukking, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 27 November 2018,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in three applications (nos. 34248/05,46745/06 and 28424/07) 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 (“the applicants”) Mr A.Shapkin, Mr N. Ramazanov and Mr K. Kulnyev on 29 July 2005, 18 October 2006 and 17 May 2007 respectively.
2. In a judgment delivered on 15 March 2016, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the quashing by way of supervisoryreview proceedings of the judgments in the applicants’ favour.
3. On 19 September 2017 one of the applicants, Mr Shapkin, indicated that when reading the Bulletin of the European Court (Russian version) he found out about the delivery of a judgment in his case. The applicant indicated that except the initial letters sent in 2005, he had received no correspondence from the Court ever since in relation to these proceedings. Consequently, the applicant was deprived of an opportunity to respond to the Government’s observations. He requested revision of the judgment as regards the non-allocation of sums under Article 41 of the Convention.
4. On 7 November 2017 the Court decided to grant the request for revision under Rule 80 § 4 of the Rules of Court and communicate it to the Government, while inviting the applicant to submit his just satisfaction claims. Those observations were received on 24 January 2018 and 1 March 2018 respectively.
THE LAW
I. THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
5. The Court’s judgment of 15 March 2016 recorded the applicant’s submissions as regards the damages, costs and expenses as follows:
“28. The Court notes at the outset that in the cases of Shapkin and Ramzanov the applicants failed to submit claims for just satisfaction within the prescribed time‑limits.”
II. THE REQUEST FOR REVISION
6. On 19 September 2017 Mr Shapkin and his representative requestedrevision of the judgment of 15 March 2016 because of the non-allocation of sums under Article 41 of the Convention.
7. On 24 January 2018 the applicant submitted his just satisfaction claims. In particular he left determination of the amount of compensation for damage to the Court’s discretion.
8. In their observations of 1 March 2018 the Government did not address the issue of the applicant’s request for revision. However, they contested the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction.
9. The Court finds that the applicant’s arguments do not relate to a clerical error, an error in calculation or an obvious mistake within the meaning of Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.
10. The Court further notes that its reading of the applicant’s submissions had a decisive influence on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, namely the non-allocation of sums under Article 41 of the Convention.
11. It accordingly decides that the judgment of 15 March 2016 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 …”
12. Having regard to the parties’ submissions of 24 January 2018 and 1 March 2018, the Court now awards the applicant the sum of 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of all heads of damage.
13. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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. Declaresthe applicant’s request for revision of the judgment of 15 March 2016 admissible;
2. Decidesto revise its judgment of 15 March 2016 as regards the non‑allocation of sums under Article 41 of the Convention;
accordingly,
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to payMr ShapkinAlexandr Mikhailovich, within three months, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of all heads of damage, to be converted into the currency of the responded 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 18 December 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Alena Poláčková
Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
| No. | Application no. | Application name |
| 1. | 34248/05 | Shapkin v. Russia |
| 2. | 46745/06 | Ramazanov v. Russia |
| 3. | 28424/07 | Kulnev v. Russia |
Leave a Reply