Решение европейского суда по правам человека от 06.07.2004"по вопросу приемлемости жалобы n 45550/99 "клара худовна катаева (klara khudovna katayeva) и мовладин хасанович катаев (movladin khasanovich katayev) против российской федерации" [рус., англ.]
The applicants appealed against the above judgment, stating that the court had
failed to assess properly the evidence in the case.
On 17 August 1999 the
Supreme Court of the Republic of Adygeya rejected the appeal in the absence of
the applicants and in the presence of the governmental authorities, finding that
the applicants had not proved the alleged pecuniary damage. The court also
stated that Russian legislation provided for no right to claim non-pecuniary
damage in connection with the alleged violation of property rights.
(b)
Supervisory review of the decisions of 23 June and 17 August 1999
On 13
January 2001 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Russia lodged with the
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation an application for supervisory review of
the case, requesting the quashing of the decisions of 23 June and 17 August 1999
on the ground, inter alia, that although the applicants had requested
examination of the case in their absence, they had not been properly notified of
the hearing in breach of Article 157 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This
resulted in the applicants" non-attendance, which, in turn, adversely affected
the fairness of the trial.
On 26 February 2001 the Supreme Court of
Russia granted the application, quashed the said decisions and remitted the case
for a fresh examination at first instance.
(c) Decision not to entertain
the claim and its quashing on supervisory review
On 30 January 2002 the
Town Court refused to examine the applicants" case on the ground of the
applicants" persistent failure, namely on five occasions, to appear before the
court. It appears that the applicants did not appeal and the decision came into
force.
On 31 May 2002 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Russia
lodged an application by way of a supervisory review, requesting the Supreme
Court of the Republic of Adygeya to quash the decision of 30 January 2002 on the
grounds of the court"s failure to deal properly with the applicants" reluctance
to attend the court hearings, for example by examining the case in their
absence, and the court"s failure to send them a summons to appear to all known
addresses and not just to one address.
On 27 August 2002 the Presidium of
the Supreme Court of the Republic of Adygeya granted the application, quashed
the decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh
examination.
(d) Fresh examination of the case
On 10 October 2002
the Town Court dismissed the applicants" claims. The court observed that on 29
July 1998 the applicants received compensation of RUR 79,676 and RUR 12,524 for
the loss of their real property and for the movable items left in Chechnya. The
court next held that the applicants had not substantiated their case to the
extent that they had claimed to have lost further real or movable items. Their
claims were accordingly rejected. The applicants, who were duly notified of the
hearing, failed to attend it.
The applicants appealed against the
judgment. It appears that they did not express in their appeal any concern about
the first-instance court"s examination of the case in their absence.
On 5
November 2002 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Adygeya rejected the appeal
and upheld the judgment of 10 October 2002. It appears that neither the
applicants nor the respondents attended the appeal hearing.
2. Other sets of
court proceedings
The applicants were involved in a number of other legal
disputes with the authorities concerning various social benefits, including, in
particular, their claims for a new car, higher salary and pension, and
index-linked savings. The domestic courts examined those claims and dismissed
them as unfounded.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complained under Article
6 of the Convention about the fairness of the proceedings, which ended with the
decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Adygeya of 17 August 1999, in
that the case had been examined in their absence.
2. The applicants
further complained, invoking Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1, about the outcome of all the proceedings to which they were a
party.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complained about the hearing of their
case in absentia. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which, insofar as
relevant, provides as follows:
"1. In the determination of his civil
rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by
[a]... tribunal...."
The Government submitted that following
communication of the application by the Court, on 13 January 2001 the Deputy
President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation lodged an application
for supervisory review of the applicants" case in view of the applicants"
absence from the trial. The Government concluded that in the light of such
actions aimed at providing the applicants with redress for the alleged violation
of the Convention, it was premature to submit any observations on the
admissibility and merits of the case. The Government later informed the Court
that the application for supervisory review had been granted by the Supreme
Court on 26 February 2001, the decisions of 23 June and 17 August 1999 were
quashed and the case was remitted to the first-instance court for a fresh
examination.
The applicants maintained their initial complaints.
The Court considers that the Government"s submissions can be interpreted as
implying that, in the light of the reopening of the proceedings, the applicants
can no longer claim to be victims of the alleged violation of the
Convention.
The Court recalls that to deprive an individual of his or her
status as a "victim" the national authorities have to acknowledge, either
expressly or in substance, and then afford redress for, the breach of the
Convention (see Amuur v. France judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments
and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36).
In the present case, on 26
February 2001 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions in the applicants" case on
the ground that the applicants had not been properly notified of the trial,
which entailed their non-attendance. This in turn adversely affected the
fairness of the proceedings. Assessing the initial set of proceedings as a
whole, the Court finds that the above decision of the Supreme Court can be seen
as an acknowledgement, in substance, of the alleged violation of the applicants"
right to a fair trial in that they were not notified properly of the hearing of
their case whereas their opponent was present.
The Court further notes
that by its decision of 26 February 2001 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions
in the applicants" case and ordered a fresh examination. It recalls that a court
judgment in civil proceedings, acknowledging an alleged breach of the Convention
rights, may constitute in itself sufficient redress (see Enders v. Germany, No.
25040/94, Commission decision of 12 April 1996). In the present case, the
Supreme Court, having found that the proceedings were unfair, quashed the
decisions of the first-instance court and the appeal court and ordered a fresh
examination of the case. The latter eventually took place on 10 October and 5
November 2002 and there is no indication of any procedural unfairness in those
proceedings. By virtue of the Supreme Court"s decision the applicants were
afforded the opportunity to have their claims determined anew in accordance with
a new and fair procedure. The Court finds that this decision, taken together
with the subsequent proceedings, can be regarded as sufficient redress for the
alleged procedural unfairness of the initial proceedings. The applicants thus
ceased to be victims of the alleged breach of the Convention.
It follows
that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance
with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
2. The Court has examined
the remainder of the applicants" complaints as submitted by them. However,
having regard to all the material in its possession, it finds that these
complaints 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.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT
UNANIMOUSLY
Declares the application inadmissible.
J.-P.COSTA
President
{S.DOLLE}
Registrar
