THIRD SECTION

CASE OF MIKHAYLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 2421/13 and 7 others -
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

6 April 2017

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Mikhaylov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Luis López Guerra, President,
	Dmitry Dedov,
	Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Karen Reid Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 March 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
Article I.	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.
Article II.	II.  THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6.  The Government submitted unilateral declarations in all applications, which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike these applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of their merits (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003‑VI and Rozhin v. Russia, no. 50098/07, §§ 23-25, 6 December 2011).
Article III.	III.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
7.  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 ...”
8.  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, nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, § 48, 16 February 2016).
9.  In the leading case of Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, 16 February 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
10.  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.
11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Article IV.	IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12.  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.”
13.  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.
14.  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.  Rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out of the list;

3.  Declares the applications admissible;

4.  Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the applicant’s absence from civil proceedings;

5.  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 April 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Karen Reid	Luis López Guerra
	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.		2421/13
13/12/2012	Yevgeniy Vladimirovich Mikhaylov
07/06/1981	compensation for unlawful criminal prosecution	06/07/2012

Norilskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region	03/10/2012

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court	1,500	
2.		6069/13
12/11/2012	Roman Igorevich Fineyev
14/06/1984	compensation for contraction of tuberculosis in detention	21/06/2012

Labytnangi Town Court of the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region	16/08/2012

Yamalo-Nenetskiy Regional Court	1,500	
3.		8299/13
15/10/2012	Yevgeniy Nikolayevich Surov
12/11/1978	employment dispute	01/06/2012

Polyanskiy District Court of the Republic of Mordoviya	18/09/2012

Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordoviya	1,500	
4.		19288/13
19/02/2013	Oleg Vladimirovich Sorokvasha
19/06/1979	parental rights deprivation	28/03/2012

Dyatkovskiy Town Court of the Bryansk Region	27/09/2012

Bryansk Regional Court	1,500	
5.		22285/13
25/02/2013	Oleg Valeryevich Severin
01/05/1977	compensation for unlawful criminal prosecution and detention	28/05/2012

Tsentralniy District Court of Barnaul	16/01/2013

Altay Regional Court	1,500	
6.		31713/13
29/04/2013	Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Gromovoy
11/10/1983	compensation for conditions of detention and challenge against allegedly unlawful placement in disciplinary cell	24/05/2012

Kalininskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk	30/10/2012

Chelyabinsk Regional Court	1,500	
7.		41291/13
30/05/2013	Vitaliy Konstantinovich Shtyrlin
21/10/1966	non-pecuniary damages for alleged lack of medical care in detention	26/10/2012

Blagoveshchensk Town Court of the Amur Region	06/02/2013

Amur Regional Court	1,500	
8.		45958/13
18/06/2013	Ilya Vladimirovich Astakhov
15/08/1982	non-pecuniary damage for bad conditions of transport	24/01/2013

Promyshlennyy District Court of Smolensk	21/05/2013

Smolensk Regional Court	1,500