[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF SAZONOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 1385/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16
October 2008
This judgment will
become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2
of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sazonov v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and André
Wampach, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 25 September 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 1385/04) against the Russian
Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Igor Alekseyevich
Sazonov (“the applicant”), on 18 December 2003.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev and Ms V. Milinchuk, former representatives of the
Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
30 August 2006 the Court decided to give notice of the application to
the Government. It also decided to examine the merits of the
application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 §
3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Dolgoprudnyy, a town in the
Moscow region.
- On
7 April 2000 the Head of Dolgoprudnyy Town Administration, K., held a
meeting with heads of departments where he stated that the applicant
was planning the murder of his (K.’s) son-in-law and had hired
a killer for this purpose. That statement was not included in the
minutes of the meeting.
- On 14 April 2000 a local newspaper published an article
under the title “The hirer of a killer lives peacefully in
Dolgoprudnyy and is going to become a minister”. The article
contained, inter alia, the same statement as disseminated by
K. at the meeting.
- On
25 April 2000 the applicant brought a libel action against K.,
editors and founders of the newspaper and an author of the article.
- On
28 January 2003 Dolgoprudnenskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region
(“the Town Court”) granted his claim in part. The court
ordered the newspaper to publish a retraction of the statement made
in the article. The court also ordered the founders of the newspaper
to pay the applicant 30,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage and costs in the amount of RUB 7,650, instead of
the RUB 108,000 claimed by the applicant. The court dismissed the
claim against K. It found that on 24 December 1999 a certain L.
had stated to the Department of Federal Security that he had been
hired by the applicant to kill K.’s son-in-law. Since the
competent authorities did not take any measures in this connection,
K. had good reasons to take them on his own. The court was satisfied
that his statement at the meeting with the heads of departments was
merely aimed at securing the safety of his family and that he had no
intention of offending the applicant. Furthermore, the statement had
not been reflected in the minutes of the meeting and was not
otherwise made public.
- Both
parties appealed against the judgment to the Moscow Regional Court
(“the Regional Court”).
- On
28 May 2003 the President of the Town Court sent the case file to the
Regional Court. The accompanying letter stated that the appeal
hearing was scheduled for 10 a.m. on 18 June 2003. The applicant and
his representative were included in the list of addressees. The
applicant’s address was indicated correctly. However, according
to the applicant, he did not receive that
letter or any other notification of the appeal hearing.
- In
October 2003 the applicant called the Registry of the Moscow Regional
Court in order to inquire about the date of the appeal hearing. He
was informed that the hearing had already taken place.
- Later,
the applicant received a copy of the appeal decision of the Regional
Court, which was dated 16 June 2003. By that decision the Regional
Court upheld the judgment of 28 January 2003. It followed from the
decision that the Regional Court had not verified whether the
applicant had been duly summonsed to the hearing.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
Code of Civil Procedure of 14 November 2002 (in force as of
1 February 2003) provides that parties to the proceedings are to
be summonsed to a court by registered mail with a confirmation of
receipt, by a phone call or a telegram, by fax or by using any other
means which will secure the delivery of the summons to the addressee.
Summonses should be served on the parties in such a way that they
have enough time to prepare their case and appear at the hearing
(Article 113).
- Summonses
are to be sent by mail or by a court courier. The time when a summons
is served on the addressee is to be recorded on a document which
should be returned to the court or in any other way used by the
postal service. A judge may request a party to the proceedings to
transmit a summons to another party. In that case, that person should
bring to the court an acknowledgment of receipt (Article 115).
- A
summons is to be served on a person against his or her signature, on
its copy, which is to be returned to the court (Article 116).
- A
civil case is to be heard in a court session with mandatory
notification to all parties to the case of the place and time of the
court session (Article 155).
- If
a party to the case fails to appear at the hearing and there is no
evidence that the party has been duly summonsed, the hearing is to be
adjourned (Article 167).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the examination of the appeal without
giving him an effective opportunity to attend the hearing had
violated his right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by
[a] ... tribunal ...”
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Government argued that the applicant had been duly notified of the
appeal hearing. They further submitted that the appeal hearing had
taken place on 18 June 2003 and that the appeal decision served on
the applicant had been dated 16 June 2003 by mistake. In support of
that submission they provided the Court with a copy of a decision
dated 18 June 2003 by which the Regional Court dismissed submissions
K. and his representative had lodged before the examination of the
appeal hearing.
- The
applicant maintained his complaint.
- The
Court is ready to accept that the appeal hearing took place on
18 June 2003. The Court further notes that the letter of 28 May
2003, by which the President of the Town Court informed the parties
that the appeal hearing had been scheduled for 10 a.m. on 18 June
2003, was allegedly sent to the applicant’s correct address.
However, the Government did not present any evidence, such as
acknowledgement of receipt, showing that it had reached the
applicant, and that it had done so in good time. Having regard to the
provisions of the Russian law on the service of court summons (see
Relevant domestic law above), the Court considers that the Government
should have been in possession of such evidence, or at least reasons
why the courier could not have had the applicant sign for receipt of
the letter. The failure on the Government’s part to submit
evidence without a satisfactory explanation gives rise to drawing of
inferences as to the ill-foundedness of their allegations. In these
circumstances, the Court is not persuaded that the domestic
authorities had notified the applicant of the appeal hearing in such
a way as to provide him with an opportunity to attend it and present
his case.
- The
Court reiterates that it has frequently found violations of Article 6
§ 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one
in the present case (see Yakovlev v. Russia, no. 72701/01, §§
19 et seq., 15 March 2005; Groshev v. Russia, no.
69889/01, §§ 27 et seq., 20 October 2005; Mokrushina v.
Russia, no. 23377/02, §§ 20 et seq., 5 October 2006;
and Prokopenko v. Russia, no. 8630/03, §§ 17 et
seq., 3 May 2007).
- Having
examined the materials submitted to it, the Court notes that the
Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
The Court has established that owing to the missing notification the
applicant was deprived of the opportunity to attend the appeal
hearing. The Court also notes that there is nothing in the appeal
judgment to suggest that the appeal court examined the question
whether the applicant had been duly summonsed and, if he had not,
whether the examination of the appeal should have been adjourned.
- It
follows that there was a violation of the applicant’s right to
a fair hearing enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1, 8 and 13 of the
Convention that the dismissal of his action against K. had breached
his right to a judicial protection of his honour, dignity and good
reputation, which were an inherent part of his private life. He
further complained that his rights under Article 6 § 2 had been
violated because a public official had accused him of a crime and
that he had been compelled to prove his innocence. He also complained
under Articles 6 and 13 that the amount of legal costs awarded to him
was too small. Finally, he considered that his action had not been
examined within a reasonable time, in breach of Article 6.
- Having
regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these
complaints fall within its competence ratione materiae, the
Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation
of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its
Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be
rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§
3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- 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.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 7,650 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of pecuniary
damage, which represented the costs awarded by the domestic courts
and to be paid by the defendants. The applicant submitted that they
had not been paid to him. He also claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in
respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government considered that there was no causal link between the
applicant’s claim for pecuniary damage and the subject matter
of the present application. As regards the non-pecuniary damage, they
submitted that it was unsubstantiated.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged, as the issue of the defendants’
failure to pay the legal costs to the applicant was not the subject
of the present application. Therefore the Court rejects the
applicant’s claim in that part. On the other hand, the Court
considers that the applicant suffered non pecuniary damage which
would not be adequately compensated by the finding of a violation
alone. However, the amount claimed by the applicant appears to be
excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court
awards the applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage
plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed RUB 108,000 and RUB 30,000, which corresponded
to his lawyer’s fees for representing him before the domestic
authorities and for drafting the application to the Court
respectively. In support of his claim he submitted a contract
concluded between him and his lawyer.
- The
Government submitted that the applicant’s claim relating to the
costs occurred before the domestic authorities did not have any link
with the subject matter of the present case and should be rejected.
As regards the costs related to drafting of the application to the
Court, the Government considered that they were not reasonable and
that the applicant did not provide any document confirming that those
expenses had actually been incurred.
- According
to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,000 covering costs
under all heads, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant
on that amount.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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
- Declares the complaint concerning the domestic
authorities’ failure to apprise the applicant of the appeal
hearing admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention the following amounts, to
be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date
of settlement:
(i) EUR
1,000 (one thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus
any tax that may be chargeable on that amount;
(ii) EUR
1,000 (one thousand euros) in respect of costs and expenses, plus any
tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on that amount;
(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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 October 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André
Wampach Christos Rozakis
Deputy Registrar President
