CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 6 juillet 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .sF5ED19DC { width:178.27pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sC9AAA900 { width:5.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7DADBE78 { width:12.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAF28489E { width:14.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFB8E93C9 { width:20.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA24D7BD8 { width:15.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA0196FFB { width:14.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s628756B { width:16.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sF876F1A { width:5.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3C0F3A58 { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#474747; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA745783F { width:12.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCAEC9D1A { width:14.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s88AC54B5 { width:20.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s389C5BA4 { width:15.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s839ECF00 { width:14.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFBEE937D { width:16.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF GORDEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 61662/13 and 5 others - see appended list )                     JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG     6 July 2017       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Gordeyev and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15 June 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     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 (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The 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. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained that their right to a fair hearing had been breached on account of the domestic courts’ refusal of their requests to appear in court. They relied on Article   6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article   6   §   1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” 7.     The 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’s case effectively before the court and to enjoy equality of arms with the opposing side, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Steel and Morris v.   the United Kingdom , no.   68416/01, §§   59-60, ECHR 2005-II). The Court’s 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’ 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. Russia , no.   27236/05 and   10   others, §   48, 16   February 2016). 8.     In the leading case of Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, cited above, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.     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. 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. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. III.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 11.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If 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.” 12.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 13.     The 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. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Declares the applications admissible;   3.     Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the applicant’s absence from civil proceedings;   4.     Holds (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; (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 period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 July 2017, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Luis López Guerra Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (applicant’s absence from civil proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Nature of the dispute Final decision First-instance hearing date Court Appeal hearing date Court Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     61662/13 02/09/2013 Oleg Aleksandrovich Gordeyev 17/06/1980 non-pecuniary damage for bad conditions of detention 29/04/2013   Troitsk Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region 09/07/2013   Chelyabinsk Regional Court 1,500     64443/13 19/08/2013 Vladimir Sergeyevich Simerikov 24/05/1978 non-pecuniary damages for poor conditions of detention; also complains about two unrelated sets of proceedings:           non-pecuniary damages for prison authorities’ failure to prevent a brawl between inmates           challenge against the applicant’s unjustified twenty-days’ detention in temporary prison facility on his way to correctional colony 26/02/2013   Balakhtinskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region         04/04/2013 Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region         29/07/2013 Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 20/05/2013   Krasnoyarsk Regional Court           15/07/2013 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court           18/11/2013 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court. 1,500     67201/13 05/10/2013 Yevgeniy Markelovich Yeremin 03/06/1966 non-pecuniary damages for deprivation of food during consultation of case file and during investigative actions 06/12/2012   Tsentralniy District Court of Kaliningrad 10/04/2013   Kaliningrad Regional Court 1,500     11204/14 23/12/2013 Yuriy Vladimirovich Karpov 25/03/1987 non-pecuniary damages for bad conditions of detention 01/08/2013   Gusevsk Town Court of the Kaliningrad Region 30/10/2013   Kaliningrad Regional Court 1,500     13237/14 03/01/2014 Denis Sergeyevich Kharsak 01/12/1984 challenge against prison authorities’ disciplinary sanctions (SHIZO) issued against the applicant 08/05/2013   Tayshet Town Court of the Irkutsk Region 18/10/2013   Irkutsk Regional Court 1,500     15444/14 26/06/2014 Konstantin Vladimirovich Glukhov 03/02/1976 challenge against prison administration’s decision to place the applicant in a disciplinary cell for bad behaviour 27/02/2013   Tayshet Town Court of the Irkutsk Region 25/04/2014   Irkutsk Regional Court 1,500   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.