The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d)<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Moldoratov and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Darian Pavli, President, Having deliberated in private on 30 June 2022,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The 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. The Russian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicants complained that they had been denied an opportunity to appear in person before the courts of first and appeal instances, in the civil proceedings to which they were parties.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. Having 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a06 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The applicants complained that 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 Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01<\/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. The Court rejects the Government\u2019s objection in application no.\u00a01344\/21 on account of the applicant\u2019s alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies by failing to bring a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court of Russia. It follows from the documents submitted that the applicant indeed lodged such an appeal and that it was dismissed.<\/p>\n 8. 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 the Court\u2019s previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Steel and Morris v. the 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 10\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a048, 16\u00a0February 2016).<\/p>\n 9. In the present case, the applicants, detainees at the time of the events, were not afforded an opportunity to attend hearings of first and appeal instances in civil proceedings to which they were parties (the details of those domestic proceedings are indicated in the appended table). Having examined all the material submitted to it, 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 than in Yevdokimov and Others, cited above.<\/p>\n 10. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant cases 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 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 12. Article 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 13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Igranov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42933\/13 and 8\u00a0others, \u00a7 40, 20 March 2018), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 14. The Court further 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,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the applicants\u2019 absence from civil proceedings;<\/p>\n 4. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that 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) that 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 28 July 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Darian Pavli ___________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF MOLDORATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 14277\/19 and 3 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n28 July 2022<\/p>\n
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd,
\nMikhail Lobov, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention
\n(applicant\u2019s absence from civil proceedings)<\/p>\n