Last Updated on May 19, 2019 by LawEuro
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ANGIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 30395/06)
JUDGMENT
(Revision)
STRASBOURG
9 October 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Angirov and Others v. Russia (request for revision of the judgment of 17 April 2018),
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Helen Keller, President,
Pere Pastor Vilanova,
MaríaElósegui, judges,
and, Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 September 2018,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 30395/06) 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 twenty-four Russian nationals on 8 July 2006.
2. In a judgment delivered on 17 April 2018, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention interpreted in the light of Article 11 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ arrest, the detention pending trial and the sentence imposed on them for participating in a protest action. It further held that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention on account of restrictions of their right to confidential communication with their lawyers and that it was not necessary to address the remainder of the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention. The Court also decided to award the applicants12,500 euros (EUR) each in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and dismissed the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction.
3. On 14 May 2018 the applicants’representative informed the Court that one of the applicants, Mr Tyurin, had diedon 14 May 2016. He accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.
4. On 10 July 2018 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the Government nine weeks in which to submit any observations. Those observations were received on 16 August 2018.
THE LAW
THE REQUEST FOR REVISION
5. The applicants’representativerequested revision of the judgment of 17 April 2018, which he had been unable to have executed because one of the applicants, Mr Vladimir KonstantinovichTyurin, had died before the judgment had been adopted. Ms Lidia OlegovnaTyurina, his mother, was the heir and should therefore receive the sums awarded to the deceased.
6. The Government stated that Ms Tyurina could not claim to be a victim of a violation of her son’s rights under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, as those rights were non-transferable.
7. The Court considers that the judgment of 17 April 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 Lidia OlegovnaTyurina the amount it had previously awarded to Mr Vladimir KonstantinovichTyurin,namely EUR 12,500 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. Decidesto revise its judgment of 17 April 2018;
andaccordingly,
2. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay Ms Lidia OlegovnaTyurina, the heir of Mr Vladimir KonstantinovichTyurin, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, 12,500 (twelve thousand five hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage,to be converted into the currency of the respondent State, 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 October 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Helen Keller
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply