CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 septembre 2017

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s9FF069EB { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:1.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s299B0C57 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 4 September 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 8664/11 Anatoliy Nikolayevich SKLYARENKO against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicants are Russian nationals. 2.     The application numbers, the dates of lodging the applications, the applicants’ names and their personal details are set out in the Appendix. 3.     The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 4.     The applicants or members of the applicants’ families took part in the emergency clean-up operation at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a result they suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. The applicants challenged the compensation for health damage in the courts. 1.     Application no. 8664/11 Sklyarenko v. Russia 5.     The applicant brought proceedings against, inter alia , the Abinsk District Social Protection Department ( Управление социальной защиты населения Абинского района ) for restoration of the right to compensation for health damage, recalculation of the monthly payments, and back payment of those unpaid. 6.     On 2   June 2010 the Abinsk District Court of Krasnodar Region ( Абинский районный суд Краснодарского края ) heard arguments from the applicant and his representative, the representative of one of the defendants, and then dismissed the applicant’s claims in full. 7.     The applicant lodged a cassation appeal ( кассационная жалоба ) and on 15 July 2010 the Krasnodar Regional Court ( Краснодарский краевой суд ) heard arguments from the applicant and his representative, and the public prosecutor (who argued that the first-instance judgment had been lawful and well-founded); it then upheld the first-instance judgment. 2.     Application no. 2625/11 Losyuk v. Russia 8.     The applicant brought an action against the Mineralniye Vody Municipal District, Stavropol Region Labour and Social Protection Department ( Управление труда и социальной защиты населения администрации Минераловодского муниципального района Ставропольского края ) for, inter alia , acknowledgement of his right to recalculation of the compensation for health damage. 9.     In the course of the proceedings the cassation court three times partially overturned the first-instance judgements (which granted the applicant’s claims in part) and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The last cassation hearings of the mentioned three were held with the participation of a public prosecutor. 10.     Thereafter, on 12 April 2010 the Mineralniye Vody District Court of the Stavropol Region ( Минераловодский районный суд Ставропольского края ) heard arguments from the applicant and his representative, and the defendant’s representative, and then granted the applicant’s claims. 11.     The defendant lodged a cassation appeal and on 6   July 2010 the Stavropol Regional Court ( Ставропольский краевой суд ) finally overturned the first-instance judgment in the presence of the public prosecutor. The cassation court delivered a new decision in the case and dismissed the applicant’s action in full. 3.     Application no. 36212/11 Naymanova v. Russia 12.     In 1987 the applicant’s husband took part in the clean-up operation at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant. He died on 16   June 1989. 13.     On 30   July 2010 the applicant brought proceedings against the Cherkessk Social Protection Department ( Управление социальной защиты населения мэрии муниципального образования г. Черкесска) , claiming payment of compensation for health damage on a monthly basis on account of the loss of the family “breadwinner” and recovery of the unpaid amount. 14.     On 2   December 2010 the Cherkesskiy Town Court of the Karachaevo-Cherkessiya Republic ( Черкесский городской суд Карачаево-Черкесской Республики ) heard arguments from the applicant’s representative and the defendant’s representative, and granted the applicant’s action in part. 15.     The public prosecutor lodged a cassation appeal and on 9   March   2011 the Supreme Court of the Karachaevo-Cherkessiya Republic ( Верховный суд Карачаево-Черкесской Республики) heard arguments from the applicant and the public prosecutor (who supported the arguments given in the cassation appeal). The cassation court overturned the first-instance judgment and delivered a new decision in the case by which it dismissed the applicant’s claims. 4.     Application no. 71422/11 Bganba v. Russia 16.     The applicant brought proceedings against, inter alia , the Labour and Social Protection Department of the Administration of the Nogayskiy Municipal Region ( Управление труда и социальной защиты населения администрации Ногайского муниципального района ) claiming monthly compensation for health damage and index-linked adjustment of the amount, as well as payment of non-pecuniary damages. 17.     On 30   June 2011 the Adyge-Khabl District Court of the Adygea Republic ( Адыге-Хабльский районный суд Карачаево-Черкесской Республики ) heard arguments from the applicant’s and the defendants’ representatives, and the public prosecutor (who argued that the applicant’s claims should be dismissed), and then dismissed the applicant’s claims. 18.     The applicant appealed and on 3   August 2011 the Supreme Court of the Karachaevo-Cherkessiya Republic ( Верховный суд Карачаево-Черкесской Республики) heard arguments from the applicant’s and the defendants’ representatives and the public prosecutor (who argued that the first-instance judgment should be upheld), and then upheld the first-instance judgement. 5.     Application no. 76186/12 Shuparskiy v. Russia 19.     The applicant brought proceedings against the Angarsk district office of the Irkutsk Region Department of the Ministry of Social Development, Trusteeship and Guardianship ( Управление Министерства социального развития, опеки и попечительства Иркутской области по Ангарскому району ) claiming, inter alia , that the monthly compensation for health damage should be index-linked. 20.     On 25   April 2012 the Angarsk Town Court of the Irkutsk Region ( Ангарский городской суд Иркутской области ) heard arguments from the applicant and his representative, the defendant’s representative, and the public prosecutor (who argued that the applicant’s claims should be dismissed), and dismissed the action. 21.     The applicant appealed and on 10   July 2012 the Irkutsk Regional Court ( Иркутский областной суд ) heard arguments from the applicant, and the public prosecutor (who argued that the appeal should be dismissed), and upheld the first-instance judgement. 22.     The applicant lodged a cassation appeal and on 6   November 2012 the Regional Court dismissed the action. COMPLAINT The applicants complain that the participation of a prosecutor in the civil proceedings was contrary to Article   6   §   1 of the Convention by, inter alia , undermining the principle of equality of arms. QUESTIONS to the parties 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6   §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the involvement of a prosecutor in these proceedings?   2.     Did the applicants exhaust the available and effective domestic remedies in respect of the prosecutors’ participation in the relevant proceedings? If not, what were the remedies they had at their disposal?   3.     What were the grounds in the domestic law and/or practice allowing for the prosecutor’s participation in the sets of proceedings in question?   4.     What were the reasons justifying the prosecutor’s participation in the proceedings?   5.     Did 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 individual situation might have on the equality of arms in the proceedings?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant’s name, date of birth, place of residence Represented by Final judgment   8664/11 27/12/2010 Anatoliy Nikolayevich SKLYARENKO 12/01/1950 Kholmskaya, Krasnodar Region     Krasnodar Regional Court, 15 July 2010   2625/11 06/01/2011 Anatoliy Nikolayevich LOSYUK 07/06/1951 Maryiny-Kolodtsy, Stavropol Region   Vladimir Mikhaylovich ZAVYALOV Stavropol Regional Court, 6 July 2010   36212/11 10/08/2011 Roza Ismailovna NAYMANOVA 25/03/1950 Cherkessk   Asldar Mardan-Ogly MARDANOV Supreme Court of the Karachaevo-Cherkessiya Republic, 9 March 2011   71422/11 23/10/2011 Pavel Shalikovich BGANBA 27/02/1961 Erken-Shakhar, Karachaevo-Cherkessiya Republic Asldar Mardan-Ogly MARDANOV Supreme Court of the Karachaevo-Cherkessiya Republic, 3 August 2011   76186/12 20/11/2012 Sergey Profilyevich SHUPARSKIY 09/10/1962 Angarsk   Inna Anatolyevna MARCHENKO Irkutsk Regional Court, 6 November 2012