Communicated on 22 January 2019<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION<\/p>\n
Application no. 15468\/13
\nGennadiy Vladimirovich KASHCHEYEV against Russia
\nand 2 other applications
\n(see list appended)<\/p>\n
STATEMENT OF FACTS<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants are Russian nationals.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0The application numbers, the dates of lodging the applications, the applicants\u2019 names and their personal details are set out in the Appendix.<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants, who had served in various national law-enforcement agencies and had been employed by various legal entities, were dismissed. They challenged their dismissals in the courts.<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0Application no 15468\/13 Kashcheyev v. Russia<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant held a post at the Militia Department no. 2 of the Bratsk Internal Affairs Directorate (\u041e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b\u043c\u0438\u043b\u0438\u0446\u0438\u0438 \u2116 2 \u0423\u0412\u0414\u043f\u043e\u0433. \u0411\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0441\u043a\u0443).<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 August 2011 the applicant was dismissed on ground of redundancy.<\/p>\n
7.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant brought an action against the Irkutsk Region Central Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation (\u0413\u0423\u00a0\u041c\u0412\u0414\u0420\u0424\u043f\u043e\u0418\u0440\u043a\u0443\u0442\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439\u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438) for reinstatement, payment of the wages (calculated as an average) for the period of his enforced absence, and compensation for non\u2011pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n
8.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 November 2011 the Bratsk City Court of the Irkutsk Region (\u0411\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439\u0433\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439\u0441\u0443\u0434\u0418\u0440\u043a\u0443\u0442\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439\u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438) heard arguments from the applicant and his representative, the defendant\u2019s representative and the prosecutor (who argued that the action should be dismissed), and then dismissed the action.<\/p>\n
9.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant lodged a cassation appeal, to which the prosecutor submitted her objections. On 10 February 2012 the Irkutsk Regional Court (\u0418\u0440\u043a\u0443\u0442\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439\u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u043d\u043e\u0439\u0441\u0443\u0434) heard arguments from the prosecutor (who argued that the first-instance judgment is lawful and well-reasoned), and then upheld the first-instance judgment.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 73740\/14 Burmistrova v. Russia<\/p>\n
10.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant held a post at the Tambov Region Directorate of the Federal Drug Control Service of the Russian Federation (\u0423\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435\u0424\u0435\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0439\u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u044b\u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0439\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439\u0424\u0435\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0438\u043f\u043e\u043a\u043e\u043d\u0442\u0440\u043e\u043b\u044e\u0437\u0430\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0442\u043e\u043c\u043d\u0430\u0440\u043a\u043e\u0442\u0438\u043a\u043e\u0432\u043f\u043e\u0422\u0430\u043c\u0431\u043e\u0432\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439\u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438).<\/p>\n
11.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 November 2013 the applicant was dismissed on ground of redundancy.<\/p>\n
12.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 November 2013 the applicant brought an action against her former employer and the Federal Drug Control Service of the Russian Federation (\u0424\u0435\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0430\u044f\u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0430\u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0439\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439\u0424\u0435\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0438\u043f\u043e\u043a\u043e\u043d\u0442\u0440\u043e\u043b\u044e\u0437\u0430\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0442\u043e\u043c\u043d\u0430\u0440\u043a\u043e\u0442\u0438\u043a\u043e\u0432) seeking, inter alia, reinstatement, recovery of the service pay for the period of her enforced absence, and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n
13.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 February 2014 the Tambov Regional Court (\u0422\u0430\u043c\u0431\u043e\u0432\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439\u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u043d\u043e\u0439\u0441\u0443\u0434) heard arguments from the applicant, three representatives of the first defendant, one of whom represented also the second defendant, and the prosecutor (who argued that the action should be dismissed), and then dismissed the action.<\/p>\n
14.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 February 2014 the applicant appealed and on 23 May 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (\u0412\u0435\u0440\u0445\u043e\u0432\u043d\u044b\u0439\u0441\u0443\u0434\u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0439\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439\u0424\u0435\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0438) heard arguments from the applicant, the first defendant\u2019s representative, the second defendant\u2019s representative, and the prosecutor (who argued that the first-instance judgment should be upheld), and then upheld the first-instance judgment.<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0Application no 4418\/18 Kramareva v. Russia<\/p>\n
15.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was a part-time employee of GUP Mosecostroy (\u0413\u0423\u041f\u00a0\u00ab\u041c\u043e\u0441\u044d\u043a\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0440\u043e\u0439\u00bb).<\/p>\n
16.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 June 2016 she brought an action against her employer for payment of wages due.<\/p>\n
17.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 July 2016 the applicant was dismissed on the ground that a full-time employee had been hired to perform her duties.<\/p>\n
18.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 July 2016 the applicant amended the earlier statement of claim, adding claims for reinstatement and payment of wages for the period of her enforced absence.<\/p>\n
19.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 October 2016 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow (\u041f\u0440\u0435\u043e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u0436\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439\u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439\u0441\u0443\u0434\u0433. \u041c\u043e\u0441\u043a\u0432\u044b) heard arguments from the applicant\u2019s representative, two representatives of the defendant, a representative of the third party Mosinzhproekt JSC (AO\u00a0\u00ab\u041c\u043e\u0441\u0438\u043d\u0436\u043f\u0440\u043e\u0435\u043a\u0442\u00bb), and the prosecutor (who argued that the action should be granted in part of issue of the certified copies of work-related documents), and then granted the action in part of the issue of the work\u2011related documents and payment of compensation of RUB 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n
20.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 November 2016 the applicant appealed and on 2 February 2017 the Moscow City Court (\u041c\u043e\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0432\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439\u0433\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439\u0441\u0443\u0434) heard arguments from the applicant and her representative, the defendant\u2019s representatives, the prosecutor (who argued that the first-instance judgment is lawful and well-reasoned), and then upheld the first-instance judgment.<\/p>\n
21.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 April 2017 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal and on 28\u00a0June 2017 the City Court dismissed it.<\/p>\n
22.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 July 2017 the applicant lodged her second cassation appeal and on 25 July 2017 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (\u0412\u0435\u0440\u0445\u043e\u0432\u043d\u044b\u0439\u0441\u0443\u0434\u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0439\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439\u0424\u0435\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0438) dismissed it.<\/p>\n
COMPLAINT<\/p>\n
23.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complain that the participation of a prosecutor in the civil proceedings had contravened Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention by, inter alia undermining the principle of equality of arms.<\/p>\n
QUESTIONS to the parties<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the involvement of a prosecutor in these proceedings?<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0Did the applicants exhaust the available and effective domestic remedies in respect of the prosecutor\u2019s participation in the relevant proceedings? If not, what were the remedies they had at their disposal?<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0What were the grounds in the domestic law and\/or practice allowing for the prosecutor\u2019s participation in the sets of proceedings in question?<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0What were the reasons justifying the prosecutor\u2019s participation in the proceedings?<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0Did the domestic courts duly review the above reasons having regard to the individual situation of each party to the proceedings? Did they consider any impact that any such an individual situation might have on the equality of arms in the proceedings?<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
APPENDIX<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Application no.<\/strong><\/td>\n | Lodged on<\/strong><\/td>\n | Applicant name<\/strong><\/p>\n | date of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n place of residence<\/strong><\/td>\n 19\/03\/1985<\/p>\n Bratsk<\/p>\n <\/td>\n 10 February 2012<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n <\/td>\n 19\/02\/1974<\/p>\n Tambov<\/p>\n <\/td>\n 23 May 2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n <\/td>\n 29\/08\/1990<\/p>\n Lyubertsy, Moscow Region<\/p>\n <\/td>\n 25 July 2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n |