THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF ALEKSEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
\n(Applications nos. 24816\/17 and 4 others \u2013
\nsee appended list)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n21 February 2019<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Alekseyev and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, President, Having deliberated in private on 31 January 2019,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Notice of the applications was given to the Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d).<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained that they had been denied an opportunity to appear in person before the court in the civil proceedings to which they were parties.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a06 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complainedthat their right to a fair hearing had been breached on account of the domestic courts\u2019 refusal of their requests to appear in court. They relied on Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the applicants, detainees at the time of the events, were not afforded an opportunity to attend hearings in civil proceedings to which they were parties. The details of those domestic proceedings are indicated in the appended table. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to present one\u2019s case effectively before the court and to enjoy equality of arms with the opposing side, as guaranteed by Article\u00a06 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Steel and Morris v.\u00a0the United Kingdom, no.\u00a068416\/01, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a059-60, ECHR 2005-II). The Court\u2019s analysis of an alleged violation of the right to a fair trial in respect of cases where incarcerated applicants complain about their absence from hearings in civil proceedings includes the following elements: examination of the manner in which domestic courts assessed the question whether the nature of the dispute required the applicants\u2019 personal presence and determination whether domestic courts put in place any procedural arrangements aiming at guaranteeing their effective participation in the proceedings (see Yevdokimov and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a027236\/05 and\u00a010\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a048, 16\u00a0February 2016).<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0In the leading case of Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a027236\/05 and 10 others, 16 February 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0Having examined all the material submitted to it, as well as the Government\u2019s objections of six months, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the domestic courts deprived the applicants of the opportunity to present their cases effectively and failed to meet their obligation to ensure respect for the principle of a fair trial.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the applicants\u2019 absence from civil proceedings;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that 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;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0that 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 during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 February 2019, pursuant to Rule 77\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n LivTigerstedt\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 AlenaPol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1 <\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/p>\n List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/p>\n (applicant\u2019s absence from civil proceedings)<\/p>\n
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nJolienSchukking, judges,
\nand LivTigerstedt,ActingDeputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActingDeputyRegistrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n