BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF SUBBOTKIN v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 837/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12
June 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 Subbotkin 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 Søren
Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 22 May 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 837/03) 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 Gennadiy Petrovich
Subbotkin (“the applicant”), on 10 October 2002.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by Mr P. Laptev and subsequently by Mrs V. Milinchuk, the
Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of
Human Rights.
- On
12 September 2005 the Court decided to give notice of the application
to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at
the same time as its admissibility. The applicant and the Government
each filed observations.
- On
2 February 2007 the Court put additional questions to the parties.
The Government did not file additional observations.
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the town of Dudinka in the
Taymyr (Dolgano-Nenetskiy) Autonomous District in the Krasnoyarsk
Region.
- On
4 June 1997 the Dudinka Town Court reinstated the applicant in his
position as the head of a permanent commission of the Taymyr District
Legislative Assembly and awarded him wage arrears and compensation
for non-pecuniary damage. That judgment was upheld on appeal and
became final on 5 November 1997.
- Enforcement
proceedings were instituted, but on 16 December 1997 a deputy
Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, Mr Davydov, suspended
the enforcement proceedings and notified the Dudinka Town Court of
his decision.
- On
20 September 2001 the applicant lodged an action with the Tverskoy
District Court of Moscow against the deputy Prosecutor General of the
Russian Federation. He argued that the decision to suspend the
enforcement proceedings had been unlawful. He also sought
compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
- On
20 November 2001 the Tverskoy District Court held a hearing. Both the
applicant and his representative were present. The hearing was
adjourned until 13 December 2001.
- The
applicant's representative attended the hearing on 13 December 2001.
At the same hearing the Tverskoy District Court pronounced judgment,
dismissing the applicant's claims.
- The
applicant's representative appealed against the judgment to the
Moscow City Court. He complained that the judgment was unfair and
that the District Court had not given the applicant's arguments due
consideration.
- According
to the Government, on 13 March 2002 the Moscow City Court sent a
letter to the applicant notifying him that an appeal hearing had been
listed for 10 April 2002. The Government provided the Court with a
copy of that letter. The letter was not signed and bore a handwritten
note indicating that it had been sent on “13 March 2001”.
According to the applicant, neither he nor his representative was
informed about the hearing of 10 April 2002.
- On
24 April 2002 the Moscow City Court, in the presence of the
representative of the Prosecutor General's office, upheld the
judgment of 13 December 2001. According to the applicant, he and
his representative were not summonsed to the hearing of 24 April
2002. They learned about it in May 2002 when they received the
judgment of 24 April 2002.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the examination of the appeal without
giving him an effective opportunity to attend 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 claimed that the applicant had been
notified of the appeal hearing of 10 April 2002 in good time. In any
event, the applicant's presence was not necessary as the appeal court
could decide on the basis of the case file and his written
submissions.
- The applicant averred that the Moscow City Court had
failed in its duty to inform him of the appeal hearings and the
Government did not present any evidence to the contrary.
- The
Court observes that the Moscow City Court fixed two appeal hearings,
on 10 and 24 April 2002. The Government claimed that the applicant
had been notified of the hearing of 10 April 2002 by a letter sent to
him on 13 March 2002. However, the Court observes that the Government
did not present any evidence showing that the letter had in fact been
dispatched and that it had reached the applicant. Furthermore, the
Court finds it peculiar that the letter was not signed, that it did
not bear any registration number or date and that the only note
showing that it had been sent indicated an incorrect date and had
been handwritten by an unknown person. As concerns the hearing of
24 April 2002, the Government did not dispute that the applicant
and his representative had not been summonsed to it. The Court has no
reason to conclude otherwise. In these circumstances, the Court is
not persuaded that the Moscow City Court had notified the applicant
and/or his representative of the appeal hearings in such a way as to
provide them with an opportunity to attend those hearings.
- The
Court 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; and Groshev v. Russia, no. 69889/01, § 27
et seq., 20 October 2005).
- 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 absence of notification
the applicant has been deprived of an opportunity to attend the
appeal hearings. 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 Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that
the Tverskoy District and Moscow City courts had misdirected
themselves in law and had incorrectly assessed the facts.
- The
Court reiterates that, in accordance with Article 19 of the
Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance of the
obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention. In
particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging
that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts,
except when it considers that such errors might have involved a
possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention in respect of which the applicant has complied with all
other criteria of admissibility, set out in the Convention. The Court
refers on this point to its established case-law (see Schenk v.
Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29,
§ 45).
- In
the light of the foregoing consideration, the Court finds that the
reasons on which the national courts based their conclusions in the
applicant's case are sufficient to exclude a finding that the way in
which they established and assessed the evidence and applied the
domestic law was unfair or arbitrary. It follows that this complaint
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 an unspecified amount, representing wage arrears
for the period from February 1997 to December 1999, in respect of
pecuniary damage. He further claimed 500,000 US dollars in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government argued that there was no causal link between the alleged
violation and the claim in respect of pecuniary damage. They further
stated that the claims were excessive and unreasonable.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On
the other hand, the Court considers that the applicant must have
suffered frustration and a feeling of injustice as a consequence of
the domestic authorities' failure to apprise him of the appeal
hearing in good time. The Court finds that the applicant suffered
non-pecuniary damage, which would not be adequately compensated by
the finding of a violation alone. However, the amount claimed appears
excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court
awards the applicant EUR 1,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable
on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not seek reimbursement of costs and expenses relating
to the proceedings before the domestic courts or the Convention
organs and this is not a matter which the Court has to examine of its
own motion (see Motière v. France, no. 39615/98, § 26,
5 December 2000).
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 hearings
in good time admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 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, EUR 1,000 (one
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted
into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of the
settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 12 June 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
