THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF SHAPKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
\n(Applications nos. 34248\/05 and 2 others \u2013 see list appended)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\n(Revision)
\nSTRASBOURG
\n18 December 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Shapkin and Others v. Russia, (request for revision of the judgment of 15 March 2016),<\/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 27 November 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in three applications (nos.\u00a034248\/05,46745\/06 and 28424\/07) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by three Russian nationals (\u201cthe applicants\u201d) Mr\u00a0A.Shapkin, Mr\u00a0N. Ramazanov and Mr\u00a0K. Kulnyev on 29\u00a0July 2005, 18 October 2006 and 17 May 2007 respectively.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0In a judgment delivered on 15 March 2016, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article\u00a06 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01 to the Convention on account of the quashing by way of supervisoryreview proceedings of the judgments in the applicants\u2019 favour.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 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\u2019s observations. He requested revision of the judgment as regards the non-allocation of sums under Article 41 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 November 2017 the Court decided to grant the request for revision under Rule 80 \u00a7 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\u00a0January 2018 and 1 March 2018 respectively.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT OF THE COURT<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The Court\u2019s judgment of 15 March 2016 recorded the applicant\u2019s submissions as regards the damages, costs and expenses as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c28.\u00a0\u00a0The 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\u2011limits.\u201d<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0THE REQUEST FOR REVISION<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 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.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 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\u2019s discretion.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0In their observations of 1 March 2018 the Government did not address the issue of the applicant\u2019s request for revision. However, they contested the applicant\u2019s claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0The Court finds that the applicant\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further notes that its reading of the applicant\u2019s submissions had a decisive influence on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule\u00a080 of the Rules of Court, namely the non-allocation of sums under Article\u00a041 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0It 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:<\/p>\n \u201cA 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 …\u201d<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the parties\u2019 submissions of 24 January 2018 and 1\u00a0March 2018, the Court now awards the applicant the sum of 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of all heads of damage.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Declaresthe applicant\u2019s request for revision of the judgment of 15\u00a0March 2016 admissible;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Decidesto revise its judgment of 15\u00a0March 2016 as regards the non\u2011allocation of sums under Article\u00a041 of the Convention;<\/p>\n accordingly,<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to payMr\u00a0ShapkinAlexandr Mikhailovich, within three months, EUR\u00a05,000 (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;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0that 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.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 December 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Fato\u015f Arac\u0131\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1 <\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nJolienSchukking, judges,
\nand Fato\u015f Arac\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n\n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Application no.<\/strong><\/td>\n Application name<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n 1.<\/td>\n 34248\/05<\/td>\n Shapkin v. Russia<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n 46745\/06<\/td>\n Ramazanov v. Russia<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3.<\/td>\n 28424\/07<\/td>\n Kulnev v. Russia<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n