CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 juin 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 87 June 2006 Skorobogatykh v. Russia (dec.) - 37966/02 Decision 8.6.2006 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Prisoner legally unable to attend hearings in civil proceedings against prison authorities: inadmissible (Article 6 inapplicable)   Unhappy with the fact that several HIV-infected detainees had spent a week in the same prison as him in 1999, the applicant brought a civil action against the authorities, requesting a court to declare that stay unlawful and threatening to his life and to award him damages. Two court instances refused to have the applicant escorted to their hearings. The district court noted that it could not summon the applicant to the hearing because the Code of Civil Procedure did not provide for transporting of prisoners to courts. It informed him however that he could appoint a representative or waive his right to be present at the hearing. After a hearing in his absence his civil action was dismissed as unsubstantiated. The court noted that the placement of HIV-infected persons in the prison had been fully compatible with the domestic legislation and that no special precautions had been required, except those relating to catering. In addition to special catering arrangements the administration of the prison had supplied HIV-infected persons with separate tableware and medical equipment and they had not taken baths on the same day as other prisoners. Finally, after their departure the whole facility had been thoroughly disinfected. A regional court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. As regards his argument that he had been denied the right to take part in the first-instance hearing, this court noted that the relevant rules did not provide for transportation of prisoners to hearings in civil cases. His detention could not be regarded as a valid excuse for his failure to attend the hearing and he had not appointed a representative. The Court could accept that the applicant’s claim had been “civil” in nature since he had demanded not only that the actions of the prison authorities be declared unlawful but also that he be awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage allegedly caused through the authorities’ fault. As to whether the dispute had been “genuine and serious”, the Court noted that under domestic law compensation for non-pecuniary damage was only payable in respect of a proven prejudice resulting from actions or inactions of authorities breaching a plaintiff’s rights. Throughout the proceedings the applicant had made no specific allegations of personal prejudice or interference with his individual rights which could, at least on arguable grounds, have called for an award of compensation under domestic law. His dissatisfaction was directed solely against the mere presence of HIV-infected prisoners in the same prison and the alleged unlawfulness of the related legal acts and administrative decisions. In the Court’s view these circumstances provided a sufficiently clear indication that the dispute in question was not genuine and serious. Accordingly, Article 6(1) was not applicable in the instant case: incompatibleratione materiae .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes