CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 avril 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sF157F5DF { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6674DD39 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; list-style-position:inside } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sA7255D62 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sF320D28F { page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; list-style-position:inside } .s906CA806 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .sE3CBA86F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .sCDBD1948 { width:15.71pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFA23A319 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s423DAEC7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s6864627 { height:62.9pt } .sDDBCB839 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:13.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }   Communicated on 22 April 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 42399/13 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich IGRANOV against Russia and 18 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. A.     The circumstances of the cases 2.     The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 3.     The applicants, who were detained in Russian penal facilities, were claimants in separate sets of civil proceedings. Most of the applicants sought compensation for various aspects of the conditions of their detention, for unlawful criminal prosecution, or for lack of adequate medical care. The applicant Mr Sulimov claimed compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained on account of allegedly poor legal representation in criminal proceedings. 4.     None of the applicants were able to attend the hearings at which their claims were examined. The domestic courts at both levels of jurisdiction refused to allow them to be present. In most of the cases the courts held that there was no domestic legal provision for bringing detainees to court and referred to Article 77.1 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences and the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. They also noted that the applicants had had the opportunity to submit written pleadings and to retain counsel to represent them in court. 5 .     In some cases the applicants’ absence was accounted for in other terms. Mr Amirkhanyan’s presence before the appeal court was considered “unnecessary for the protection of [the applicant’s] rights and from the standpoint of the requirements of justice”, while Mr Mikhanoshin’s leave to appear was refused for the sole reason that “[he] was deprived of [his] liberty”. In the cases of Mr Ochirov and Mr Kulachinskiy, the appeal courts considered that the Code of Civil Procedure “did not give detainees the right to be present at a hearing”. Before assessing the merits of Mr Gorbunov’s claim, the appeal court commented on his absence in the following terms: “... The fact that an imprisoned convict cannot appear in person before a civil court is not an obstacle to the merits of his case being heard, because otherwise it would have been impossible to attain the objectives of civil proceedings as formulated in the Code of Civil Procedure ...” In the case of Mr Gorbulin the appeal court held as follows: “... It follows from the recommendations of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of Russia that a detainee’s participation in civil proceedings may be ensured by way of a video link, provided such an opportunity exists. [The applicant’s] personal presence in court is not in itself the objective of the civil proceedings, but rather a precondition for an objective and comprehensive examination of the [applicant’s] case. The court hearing may therefore ... continue in [the applicant’s] absence.” 6.     The applicants’ claims were refused at two levels of jurisdiction. The dates of the final judgments are set out in the appended table. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 1.     Civil Code of Russia 7.     The relevant provisions of the Code read as follows: Article 155: Court hearing “Civil cases shall be examined in a hearing upon mandatory provision of information to the parties about the time and place of the hearing.” Article 155.1: Participation in the hearing by means of a video-conference [1] “1.     If the court has facilities for organising a video-conference, the parties and their representatives, as well as witnesses, experts, specialists and interpreters, can take part in the hearing by means of a video-conference. The video-conference is organised at the initiative of the court or at the request of the parties. 2.     The parties and their representatives ... participate in the hearing by means of a video-conference using the video-conferencing equipment that is installed in the competent courts at their place of residence, stay or location. For persons who are in remand centres or in penitentiary facilities, the equipment installed in such facilities can be used ...” Article 157: Direct, oral and continuous character of civil proceedings “1.     The court must take direct cognizance of the evidence in the case, including by hearing the parties and third parties and witness testimony ...” 2.     Proceedings are conducted orally before the same judicial formation ...” Article 160: Opening of the hearing “At the scheduled time the presiding judge opens the hearing and announces the case to be examined.” Article 161: Checking the attendance of the parties “1.     The clerk to the court reports to the bench which of the summonsed persons are in attendance, whether the absent persons have been notified [of the hearing] and what information is available about the reasons for their absence.” Article 327: Procedure for examining cases in the appellate court [2] “1.     The appellate court notifies the parties about the time and place of the appellate hearing. The appellate court carries out a new examination of the case in a hearing in accordance with the rules of procedure in the first-instance court ... The parties, their representatives ... may participate in the hearing by means of a video-conference in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 155.1 ...” 2.     Code on the Execution of Sentences 8 .     Article 77.1 provides that a convicted person may be transferred from a correctional colony to a temporary detention facility if his or her participation is required as a witness, a victim or a suspect in connection with certain investigative measures in a criminal case. It does not mention the possibility for a convicted person to take part in civil proceedings, whether as a claimant or a defendant. 3.     Case-law of the Constitutional Court of Russia 9 .     The Constitutional Court has on several occasions examined complaints by incarcerated individuals whose requests to appear in civil proceedings had been refused by the courts. It declared the complaints inadmissible, finding that the contested provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code on the Execution of Sentences did not, as such, restrict the convicted person’s access to court or undermine the fairness of the proceedings. It emphasised, nonetheless, that the detainee should be able to make submissions to the court, either through a representative or in some other way provided for by law, such as by means of a video link. If necessary, the hearing may be held at the location where the convicted person is serving his or her sentence or, alternatively, the court hearing the case may instruct the court with territorial jurisdiction over the correctional colony to obtain the detainee’s submissions and carry out any other procedural measures (decisions no. 478-O of 16 October 2003, no. 335-O of 14 October 2004, no. 94-O-O of 21 February 2008, and no. 576-O-P of 19   May 2009). 10.     The relevant part of decision no. 94-O-O of 21 February 2008 read as follows: “It must be borne in mind that a person who is in detention and who is a party to a civil case must be able to exercise his rights: the judge at the preliminary stage ... must send him a letter setting out his rights, including the right to appoint a representative; he should be served in advance with a copy of the claim form ... and other documents, including judicial decisions; he should be allowed sufficient time in view of his situation to appoint a representative, to prepare his legal position and to submit it to the court ...” 11.     In its decision no. 576-O-P of 19 May 2009 the Constitutional Court held: “[Article 77.1 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences] does not prevent the court from deciding that the detainee’s presence at the hearing is mandatory as long as it considers that the interests of justice and of the protection of human rights so require. ... [T]here is an obligation on the court which determines the issue of the detainee’s personal participation at the hearing ... on his civil claim, to take into account all the relevant circumstances, including the [legal] character of the constitutional rights involved and the need to take oral evidence from the detainee at the hearing, and adopt a reasoned decision as to means of ensuring [his] participation in the proceedings.” 4.     Case-law of the Supreme Court of Russia 12 .     In Resolution no. 21 of 27 June 2013 on the “Application of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4   November 1950 and its Protocols by the courts of general jurisdiction”, the Plenary Supreme Court issued the following guidance to the courts: “16.     It follows from Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, that an imprisoned person has the right to participate in hearings of his civil case.” COMPLAINT 13.     The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that they were denied an opportunity to appear in person before the court in the civil proceedings to which they were parties. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts’ failure to ensure the applicants’ participation in the hearings of their cases? In particular, did the domestic courts examine whether the nature of the civil disputes required the applicants’ personal presence (see Gryaznov v. Russia , no. 19673/03, § 49, 12 June 2012)? Did the courts consider any specific arrangements aiming at guaranteeing the applicants’ effective participation in the proceedings (see Vladimir Vasilyev v.   Russia , no. 28370/05, §   84, 10   January 2012)?   2.     Having regard to the applicants’ situation in the instant cases and to the Court’s findings in many similar cases (see, most recently, Dmitriyev v.   Russia , no.   40044/12, §§ 48-51, 24 October 2013; Bortkevich v. Russia , no.   27359/05, §§ 63-69, 2 October 2012; Gryaznov, cited above, §§ 44-51; Karpenko v. Russia , no. 5605/04, § 89-94, 13 March 2012; and Rozhin v.   Russia , no. 50098/07, §§ 31-34, 6   December 2011), are these shortcomings indicative of a systemic problem or a structural deficiency of the Russian law? Does this situation amount to “a practice incompatible with the Convention” (see Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no.   34884/97, §   22, ECHR 1999 ‑ V) requiring adoption of general measures in accordance with Article 46 § 1 of the Convention as interpreted in the light of Article 1 of the Convention? Are the present cases suitable for the pilot-judgment procedure?   Appendix No Application no. Lodged on Applicant’s details Date of birth   Represented by First instance hearing date Court Appeal hearing date Court   42399/13 20/05/2013 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich IGRANOV 21/06/1975   E. Markov 24   January 2013   Leninskiy District Court of the Vladimir Region 16   May 2013 Vladimir Regional Court   24051/14 23/05/2014 Yuriy Aleksandrovich ZHUNDO 28/01/1973     13   November 2013 Promyshlennyy District Court of Smolensk 1   April 2014 Smolensk Regional Court   25439/14 03/03/2014 Samvel Sergeyevich AMIRKHANYAN 26/06/1966     1) 15   October 2012; 2) 5   June 2014 1)   Gvardeyskiy District Court of the Kaliningrad Region; 2)   Leningradskiy District Court of the Kaliningrad Region 1)   23   January 2013; 2)   10   September 2014 Kaliningrad Regional Court   35753/14 09/07/2014 Aleksandr Sergeyevich MIKHANOSHIN 14/01/1984     16   September 2013 Dzerzhinskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region 23   January 2014 Novosibirsk Regional Court   36747/14 26/06/2014 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich KHVOROSTYANOY 10/07/1979     5   August 2013 Bagrationovskiy District Court of the Kaliningrad Region 25   December 2013 Kaliningrad Regional Court   40781/14 31/07/2014 Aleksandr Viktorovich VORONIN 27/06/1979     9   December 2013 Leninskiy District Court of Vladimir 18   February 2014 Vladimir Regional Court   47712/14 17/09/2014 Vladimir Nikolayevich GORBUNOV 20/02/1980     15   April 2014 Zavodskoy District Court of Kemerovo 25   September 2014 Kemerovo Regional Court   55804/14 11/03/2015 Igor Viktorovich VLASOV 05/03/1972     19   September 2014 Krasnoglinskiy District Court of Samara 4   February 2015 Samara Regional Court   60710/14 12/11/2014 Igor Valeryevich KUZNETSOV 23/07/1971     29   January 2014 Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh 19   June 2014 Voronezh Regional Court              61607/14 14/08/2014 Vitaliy Vladimirovich OCHIROV 16/08/1964     28   January 2014 Sovetskiy District Court of Ulan-Ude 18   June 2014 Supreme Court of the Buryatiya Republic              69762/14 12/01/2015 Andrey Eduardovich KRESS 08/09/1971     26   March 2014 Kezhemskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region 21   July 2014 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court              1711/15 23/12/2014 Sergey Yevgenyevich KULACHINSKIY 26/12/1985     13   February 2014 Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic 17   July 2014 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic              3741/15 21/12/2014 Sergey Aleksandrovich SIVERKOV 28/05/1965     8   August 2014 Chernyakhovsk Town Court of the Kaliningrad Region 24   September 2014 Kaliningrad Regional Court              7230/15 22/01/2015 Aleksandr Anatolyevich GORBULIN 07/08/1982     16   July 2014 Labytnangi Town Court of the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region 29   September 2014 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Regional Court              7615/15 23/03/2015 Anton Aleksandrovich SULIMOV 07/12/1983     8   April 2014 Zavodskoy District Court of Saratov 30   September 2014 Saratov Regional Court              14144/15 29/10/2013 Sergo Dzhanguliyevich KVERNADZE 09/06/1968     1) 2   July 2013; 2) 14   November 2013 Tsentralnyy District Court of Kaliningrad 1)   25   September 2013; 2)   26   February 2014 Kaliningrad Regional Court              24303/15 17/04/2015 Andrey Igorevich RESIN 29/07/1974   S. Zhansugurov 11   November 2013 Tsentralnyy District Court of Khabarovsk 24   September 2014 Khabarovsk Regional Court              24307/15 30/04/2015 Sergey Vasilyevich MALYGIN 26/08/1973     8   October 2014 Medvezhyegorskiy District Court of the Kareliya Republic 12   December 2014 Supreme Court of the   Kareliya Republic              24605/15 13/04/2015 Dmitriy Gennadyevich LUPANSKIY 07/07/1975     7   August 2014 Gvardeyskiy District Court of Kaliningrad 12   November 2014 Kaliningrad Regional Court         [1] .     This article was inserted by Law no. 66-FZ of 26 April 2013. [2] .     In force since 1 January 2012.