Право
Навигация

 

Реклама




 

 

Ресурсы в тему

 

Реклама

Секс все чаще заменяет квартплату

Новости законодательства Беларуси

 

СНГ Бизнес - Деловой Портал. Каталог. Новости

 

Рейтинг@Mail.ru


Законодательство Российской Федерации

Архив (обновление)

 

 

ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ ЕВРОПЕЙСКОГО СУДА ПО ПРАВАМ ЧЕЛОВЕКА ОТ 20.10.2005 ДЕЛО ГРОШЕВ (GROSHEV) ПРОТИВ РОССИИ [АНГЛ.]

(по состоянию на 20 октября 2006 года)

<<< Назад

                                
                    EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
                                   
                             FIRST SECTION
                                   
                       CASE OF GROSHEV v. RUSSIA
                      (Application No. 69889/01)
                                   
                             JUDGMENT <*>
                                   
                        (Strasbourg, 20.X.2005)
                                   
   --------------------------------
       <*>  This  judgment will become final in the circumstances  set
   out  in  Article  44 з 2 of the Convention. It may  be  subject  to
   editorial revision.
   
       In the case of Groshev v. Russia,
       The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting  as
   a Chamber composed of:
       Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
       Mr L. Loucaides,
       Mrs F. Tulkens,
       Mr P. Lorenzen,
       Mrs {N. Vajic} <*>,
   --------------------------------
       <*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
   латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
   
       Mrs S. Botoucharova,
       Mr A. Kovler, judges,
       and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
       Having deliberated in private on 29 September 2005,
       Delivers  the  following judgment, which was  adopted  on  that
   date:
                                   
                               PROCEDURE
                                   
       1. The case originated in an application (No. 69889/01) 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  Yuriy
   Vasilyevich Groshev, on 31 January 2001.
       2.  The  Russian Government ("the Government") were represented
   by  their  Agent,  Mr  P.  Laptev, Representative  of  the  Russian
   Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
       3.  On  27 September 2004 the Court decided to communicate  the
   application to the Government. Under the provisions of  Article  29
   з  3  of  the Convention, it decided to examine the merits  of  the
   application at the same time as its admissibility.
       4.  The  Government  objected to the joint examination  of  the
   admissibility  and  merits of the application. The  Court  examined
   their objection and dismissed it.
                                   
                               THE FACTS
                                   
                   I. The circumstances of the case
                                   
       5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Klimovsk in the
   Moscow Region.
       6. In February 1999 the applicant brought an action against the
   Moscow  Region health department, seeking to declare  invalid  some
   data  in  his medical records. The disputed information related  to
   the  applicant's  degree  of disability and  affected  his  pension
   entitlement and fitness for work.
       7. On 1 September 1999 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow
   dismissed the applicant's claims.
       8.  On  10  September 1999 the applicant filed an  appeal.  The
   appeal hearing was listed for 28 March 2000.
       9.  On  20  March 2000 the applicant was admitted to a hospital
   for  inpatient  treatment. On 27 March 2000 his acquaintance  asked
   the  Moscow  City  Court,  by a telegram sent  on  the  applicant's
   behalf,  for  an adjournment of the hearing. The Government  denied
   that the telegram had been sent.
       10. On 28 March 2000 the Moscow City Court adjourned the appeal
   hearing  until  4  April 2000. The Government  submitted  that  the
   hearing  had  been adjourned because there had been no  information
   that the applicant had been duly summoned.
       11.  On  30  March  2000 the Moscow City Court  mailed  to  the
   applicant  a  new  summons  for the hearing  listed  for  4  April.
   According to the postmark, it reached the applicant's address on  5
   April.
       12.  On  4 April 2000 the Moscow City Court examined the appeal
   and rejected it. Neither party was present.
       13. On 7 April 2000 the applicant left the hospital.
       14.  On  31  August  2000 the Moscow City  Court  informed  the
   applicant that his appeal had been rejected on 4 April 2000.
                                   
                       II. Relevant domestic law
                                   
       15. The RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure of 11 June 1964 (in force
   at  the material time) provided that a summons was to be served  on
   the  parties  and  their representatives in such a  way  that  they
   would  have enough time to appear at the hearing and prepare  their
   case.  Where necessary, the parties could be summoned  by  a  phone
   call or a telegram (Article 106).
       16.  Court summonses were to be sent by mail or by courier  and
   served on the person who was a party to the case (Articles 108  and
   109).
       17.  If  a party to the case failed to appear and there was  no
   evidence that the party had been duly summoned, the hearing had  to
   be adjourned (Article 299).
       18.  The appeal court delivered its judgment in accordance with
   the  rules established for the first-instance courts (Article 304).
   The  court  was  required to announce the  operative  part  of  its
   decision  in  the final hearing and to indicate the date  when  the
   parties would be able to take cognisance of the entire text of  the
   judgment (Article 203).
                                   
                                THE LAW
                                   
        I. Alleged violation of Article 6 з 1 of the Convention
                                   
       19. The applicant complained that the examination of the appeal
   without giving him an effective opportunity to attend violated  his
   right  to  a  fair  hearing under Article 6 з 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
                                   
       20.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed  to
   introduce  the  application before 4 October 2000, that  is  within
   six  months  after the final judgment had been made. Even  assuming
   that  he  only took cognisance of the City Court's decision  on  31
   August  2000,  he  still  had  more  than  a  month  to  lodge  the
   application.  In any event, the failure to take cognisance  of  the
   City  Court's decision is entirely attributable to the  applicant's
   own  conduct.  He  left the hospital on 7 April 2000  but  made  no
   inquiries about the contents of the decision until August 2000.
       21.  The  applicant responded that the Moscow  City  Court  had
   failed  in  its  duty  to  inform him of the  developments  in  the
   proceedings.
       22. The Court recalls its constant case-law, according to which
   the  object  and  purpose of Article 35 з 1 of the  Convention  are
   best  served by counting the six-month period as running  from  the
   date  of  service  of  the  written judgment  in  cases  where  the
   applicant  is entitled, pursuant to domestic law, to be  served  ex
   officio  with  a  written  copy  of the  final  domestic  decision,
   irrespective  of  whether  that judgment was  previously  delivered
   orally  (see Soares Fernandes v. Portugal, No. 59017/00, зз 15  and
   17,  8  April 2004; Sukhorubchenko v. Russia (dec.), No.  69315/01,
   15 January 2004).
       23.  The  Court notes that the date of delivery of the complete
   text  of  the  appeal judgment was to be determined at  the  appeal
   hearing  (see paragraph 18 above). The Government did not  indicate
   the  date  that had been fixed as the delivery date. Nor  did  they
   claim  that  a copy of the appeal judgment had been served  on  the
   applicant  before 31 August 2000 or that it had been available  for
   inspection  at  the registry on an earlier date. The Court  accepts
   therefore that the applicant first obtained the appeal judgment  of
   the  Moscow  City  Court  on  31 August  2000.  As  he  lodged  the
   application  with  the Court within six months of  that  date,  the
   application  was introduced in time. For these reasons,  the  Court
   dismisses the Government's objection.
       24.  The Court notes that the complaint is not manifestly  ill-
   founded within the meaning of Article 35 з 3 of the Convention.  It
   further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds.  It
   must therefore be declared admissible.
                                   
                               B. Merits
                                   
       25.  The  Government  claimed that the  applicant's  points  of
   appeal  had  not contained any information that could have  led  to
   the  quashing  of  the  first-instance  judgment.  The  applicant's
   presence was not indispensable as the appeal court could decide  on
   the basis of the case-file and his written submissions.
       26.  The applicant maintained that he had been apprised of  the
   appeal hearing before the City Court in a belated fashion and  that
   he had been denied an effective opportunity to be heard.
       27. The Court reiterates that the obligation under Article 6  з
   1  to hold a public hearing is not an absolute one. Thus, a hearing
   may  be  dispensed with if a party unequivocally waives his or  her
   right  thereto and there are no questions of public interest making
   a  hearing  necessary. A waiver can be done explicitly or  tacitly,
   in  the  latter  case for example by refraining from submitting  or
   maintaining  a request for a hearing (see, among other authorities,
   {Hakansson} and Sturesson v. Sweden, judgment of 21 February  1990,
   Series  A  No.  171-A, з 66; and Schuler-Zgraggen  v.  Switzerland,
   judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A No. 263, з 58).
       28.  The  Court observes that at the material time the  Russian
   rules  of  civil procedure provided for an oral hearing before  the
   appeal  court.  However, the parties' attendance was not  mandatory
   and,  if  a  party  did not appear at the hearing without  a  valid
   reason  after  it had been duly notified thereof, the  court  could
   proceed  with  the examination of the appeal. The  Court  considers
   that  these  provisions were not, in themselves, incompatible  with
   the  fair  trial  guarantees of Article 6  з  1  (see  Yakovlev  v.
   Russia, No. 72701/01, з 20, 15 March 2005).
       29.  The  Court further recalls that the Convention is intended
   to  guarantee  not  rights  that are theoretical  or  illusory  but
   rights  that  are  practical and effective. It considers  that  the
   right to a fair and public hearing would be devoid of substance  if
   a  party to the case were not apprised of the hearing in such a way
   so  as to have an opportunity to attend it, should he or she decide
   to  exercise  the  right to appear guaranteed in the  domestic  law
   (see Yakovlev, cited above, з 21).
       30.  Turning  to  the  present case, the Court  observes  that,
   according  to the postmark, the applicant received the summons  for
   the   appeal  hearing  one  day  after  it  had  taken  place.  The
   Government  did  not  deny that the summons  had  not  reached  the
   applicant  on time. 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 summoned and,  if  he
   had  not,  whether the examination of the appeal should  have  been
   adjourned.
       31.  It  follows that there was a violation of the  applicant's
   right  to  a  fair  hearing enshrined in  Article  6  з  1  of  the
   Convention.
                                   
            II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
                                   
       32.  The applicant also complained under Article 6 з 1  of  the
   Convention  that  the  domestic courts had not  complied  with  the
   procedural  time-limits at all stages of the proceedings  and  that
   they  had  given  an arbitrary assessment of evidence  and  of  his
   arguments.
       33.  The  Court  recalls that the observance of domestic  time-
   limits  is only one of the aspects for its assessment of compliance
   with  the  "reasonable time" requirement of Article 6 з 1.  In  the
   present  case the global duration of the proceedings, which  lasted
   one  year  and  six  months, cannot be  said  to  have  exceeded  a
   "reasonable  time". As to the complaint concerning  the  assessment
   of  evidence, the Court reiterates that Article 6 does not lay down
   any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should  be
   assessed,  which are therefore primarily matters for regulation  by
   national  law and the national courts. Having regard to the  facts,
   as  submitted by the applicant, the Court finds no appearance of  a
   violation of that provision.
       34.  It follows that this part of the application is manifestly
   ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article  35  зз
   3 and 4 of the Convention.
                                   
           III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
                                   
       35. 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."
       36. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.
   Accordingly,  the Court considers that there is no  call  to  award
   him any sum on that account.
                                   
               FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
                                   
       1.  Declares the complaint concerning the domestic authorities'
   failure  to  apprise the applicant of the appeal  hearing  in  good
   time,   admissible   and   the   remainder   of   the   application
   inadmissible;
       2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 з  1  of
   the Convention;
       3.  Decides  not  to  make an award under  Article  41  of  the
   Convention.
   
       Done  in  English, and notified in writing on 20 October  2005,
   pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
   
                                                      Christos ROZAKIS
                                                             President
                                                                      
                                                       {Soren} NIELSEN
                                                             Registrar
   
   

<<< Назад

 
Реклама

Новости


Реклама

Новости сайта Тюрьма


Hosted by uCoz