THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF SALAKHBEKOVANDABUKAYEV v. RUSSIA
\n(Applications nos. 28368\/09 and 28636\/09)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n29 May 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Salakhbekov and Abukayevand v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n BrankoLubarda, President, Having deliberated in private on 7 May 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 two applications (nos.\u00a028368\/09 and 28636\/09) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by two Russian nationals, whose personal details appear in the Appendix.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant in application no. 28636\/09 was represented by Mr\u00a0Z.S.\u00a0Salimov, a lawyer practising in Makhachkala. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 April 2017 the complaints concerning the extension of the time limits for lodging appeals and subsequent quashing of the final judgments in the applicants\u2019 favour were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application no. 28368\/09 was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 \u00a7 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. After having considered the Government\u2019s objection, the Court rejects it.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0In 2008 the applicants applied for recalculation of the social benefits they were entitled to as persons who took part in the clean-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. Their claims were granted by domestic courts.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Further developments in their cases are summarised in the Appendix.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant domestic law and practice governing the restoration of the time-limits for appeal is summed up in the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of Magomedov and Others v. Russia(nos. 33636\/09 and 9 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a035-43, 28\u00a0March 2017).<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment (Rule\u00a042 \u00a7 1 of the Rules of Court).<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained that the unlawful extension of the time\u2011limit for appeal granted by the domestic courts following the defendant authority\u2019s request had resulted in the judgments in their favour being quashed, which consequently constituted a violation of their right to a court. They relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01 which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:<\/p>\n Article 6 \u00a7 1<\/p>\n \u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0In the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.\u201d<\/p>\n Article 1 of Protocol No. 1<\/p>\n \u201cEvery natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.\u201d<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested their position.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the factual setting and the legal issues raised by the applicant are substantively similar to those previously examined in the caseMagomedov and Others (cited above, in particular \u00a7\u00a7 6-13).<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0Having 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. (Magomedov and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a090-97).<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the above conclusion, the Court considers that there is no need to consider either the admissibility or the merits of the complaint submitted by the applicants under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Magomedov and Others, cited above, \u00a7 103, with numerous further references).<\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 15.\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 16.\u00a0\u00a0Referring to the judgment delivered in the case Magomedov and Others (cited above, \u00a7 107) both partiesconsidered that the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has no reasons to disagree with the parties and considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage which may have been suffered by the applicants.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Declaresthe applications admissible;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that it is not necessary to consider separately the admissibility and the merits of the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 May 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Stephen Phillips\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 BrankoLubarda <\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/p>\n no.<\/strong><\/p>\n Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n Date of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n Place of residence<\/strong><\/p>\n Nationality<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n a) date of delivery<\/strong><\/p>\n b) date of becoming final<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n (in Russian roubles)<\/strong><\/td>\n grounds <\/strong><\/td>\n court, date and grounds <\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 05\/05\/2009<\/td>\n 01\/08\/1964<\/p>\n Kizilyurt,<\/p>\n Republic of Dagestan Russian<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 14\/01\/2009<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Incorrect application of material law, financial interests of the Russian Federation were infringed<\/td>\n 14\/01\/2009<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Wrong assessment of evidence, lack of supporting documents confirming the applicant\u2019s rights<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 05\/05\/2009<\/td>\n 04\/04\/1961<\/p>\n Leninaul,<\/p>\n Republic of Dagestan Russian<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 24\/12\/2008<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Incorrect application of material law, financial interests of the Russian Federation were infringed<\/td>\n 21\/01\/2009<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The same dispute between the same parties was considered by the first instance court in 2006<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\nPere Pastor Vilanova,
\nGeorgios A. Serghides, judges,
\nand Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nRegistrar\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
\n<\/strong>No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicant name<\/strong><\/p>\n Final domestic judgment<\/strong><\/p>\n Awards<\/strong><\/p>\n Appeal lodged by the authorities<\/strong><\/td>\n Extension of the time-limit for appeal granted: court, date and<\/strong><\/p>\n Enforcement<\/strong><\/td>\n Quashing:<\/strong><\/p>\n \n 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n 28368\/09<\/p>\n Alkhuvat Magomed-rasulovich SALAKHBEKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n Kizilyurt Town Court
\n07\/02\/200817\/02\/2008 <\/td>\nRUB 5,497,395 (arrears)+ RUB\u00a094,738 (monthly payments)<\/p>\n 10\/11\/2008<\/td>\n Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan<\/p>\n Enforced in part of monthly payments<\/td>\n Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan<\/p>\n \n 2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n 28636\/09<\/p>\n Abuk Zaynalabidovich ABUKAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n Kizilyurt Town Court
\n11\/02\/200821\/02\/2008 <\/td>\nRUB\u00a05,629,530.5 (arrears)+ RUB 95,642 (monthly payments)<\/p>\n 10\/11\/2008<\/td>\n Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan<\/p>\n Enforced in part of monthly payments<\/td>\n Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan<\/p>\n