Last Updated on May 17, 2019 by LawEuro
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SHATOKHIN v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 50236/06)
JUDGMENT
(Revision)
STRASBOURG
16 October 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Shatokhin v. Russia (request for revision of the judgment of 27 February 2018),
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 September 2018,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 50236/06) 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 a Russian national, Mr Konstantin YuryevichShatokhin (“the applicant”), on 16 November 2006.
2. In a judgment delivered on 27 February 2018, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s placement in solitary confinement in a punishment cell, despite his psychiatrist’s recommendation that such measure should not be applied to him. The Court also decided to award the applicant15,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and dismissed the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction.
3. On 30 March 2018 the applicant’srepresentative informed the Court that he had learned that the applicant had died on 21 October 2012. He accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.
4. On 5 June 2018 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the Government six weeks in which to submit any observations. Those observations were received on 20 July 2018.
THE LAW
THE REQUEST FOR REVISION
5. The applicant’srepresentative requested revision of the judgment of 27 February 2018, which he had been unable to have executed because the applicant had died before the judgment had been adopted. Ms Svetlana AleksandrovnaShatokhina, the applicant’s mother, was the heir and should therefore receive the sum awarded to the deceased.
6. The Government stated that Ms Shatokhina could not claim to be a victim of a violation of her son’s rights under Article 3, as those rights were non-transferable.
7. The Court considers that the judgment of 27 February 2018 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court (see, among many others, Bajrami v. Albania (revision), no. 35853/04, 18 December 2007; VolkanÖzdemir v. Turkey (revision), no. 29105/03, 20 July 2010; Kulikowski v. Poland (revision), no. 18353/03, 21 December 2010; Dyller v. Poland (revision), no. 39842/05, 15 February 2011; GülbaharÖzer and Others v. Turkey (revision), no. 44125/06, 10 June 2014; Nosov and Others v. Russia (revision), nos. 9117/04 and 10441/04, 15 January 2015; Dzhabrailovy v. Russia (revision), no. 68860/10, 4 February 2016; and Zherdev v. Ukraine (revision), no. 34015/07, 25 January 2018).The relevant parts of Rule 80 of 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.
…”
8. It accordingly decides to award Ms Svetlana AleksandrovnaShatokhina the amounts it previously awarded to the deceased applicant, namely EUR 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
9. 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 27 February 2018;
and accordingly,
2. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay Ms Svetlana AleksandrovnaShatokhina, the heir of Mr Konstantin YuryevichShatokhin, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 15,000 (fifteen 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 16 October 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Alena Poláčková
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply