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 £5, 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 KOSTIN v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 23464/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10
May 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kostin v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Christos Rozakis,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Mirjana Lazarova
Trajkovska, judges,
and André Wampach,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 12 April 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 23464/06) 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 Sergey Anatolyevich
Kostin (“the applicant”), on 1 April 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr I.V. Sivoldayev, a lawyer practising
in Voronezh. The Russian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
29 January 2009 the President of the First Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Voronezh.
- On
11 April 2005 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the
local administration seeking formal acknowledgment of his entitlement
to child benefits and the relevant arrears.
- On
27 July 2005 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh (“the
District Court”) dismissed his claims finding that he was not
eligible for the sought benefits. The applicant appealed against the
judgment.
- On
4 October 2005 the District Court summoned the applicant to appear at
the appeal hearing fixed for 27 October 2005. There is no evidence
that the summons was dispatched or that the applicant indeed received
it.
- On
27 October 2005 the Voronezh Regional Court examined and dismissed as
unfounded the applicant’s appeal. The applicant was absent from
the appeal hearing, and the appeal court did not examine the question
of his due notification at the hearing.
- According
to the applicant, on 1 December 2005 he inquired about the date
of the appeal hearing at the registry of the District Court and was
told that the Voronezh Regional Court had already examined and
dismissed his appeal.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that he had not been notified of the appeal
hearing of 27 October 2005. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention, the relevant part of 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
Government submitted that Article 6 was not applicable to the
proceedings initiated by the applicant as they had concerned a
dispute over social benefits which were not guaranteed by the
Convention. Alternatively, they suggested that the applicant’s
complaint was manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected in
accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
- The
applicant objected to this argument referring to the Court’s
findings on a similar issue in the case of Bulgakova v. Russia
(no. 69524/01, 18 January 2007).
- The Court is aware that various socio-economic rights,
such as the right to child benefits provided by the State, have their
origin in the public law and as such are not protected by the
Convention. However, the fact that a substantive right is not
protected by the Convention does not exclude a dispute over such a
right from the scope of Article 6. It is beyond doubt that the child
benefits, which are purely economic in nature, are “civil”
rights within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see Francesco
Lombardo v. Italy, 26 November 1992, § 17, Series A no.
249 B; Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June
1993, § 46, Series A no. 263; and Massa v. Italy,
24 August 1993, § 26, Series A no. 265-B). It follows
that Article 6 is applicable.
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, nor is it
inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared
admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Government stated that the applicant had been notified of the appeal
hearing of 27 October 2005 in good time. To support their argument,
they submitted a copy of the summons of 4 October 2005 signed by a
judge and bearing a stamp of the District Court’s registry with
the registration number and date of the letter.
- The
applicant maintained his complaint adding that there was no evidence
that he had received the summons.
- The
Court observes that the Government did not present any evidence
showing that the summons had in fact been dispatched and that it had
reached the applicant. It further observes that the appeal court
neglected to verify whether the applicant had been duly notified of
the appeal hearing.
- The
Court recalls 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, among others, Yakovlev v. Russia, no.
72701/01, § 19 et seq., 15 March 2005; Groshev v.
Russia, no. 69889/01, § 27 et seq., 20 October
2005; and Subbotkin v. Russia, no. 837/03, § 21, 12 June
2008).
- 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. It
has established that owing to the absence of notification the
applicant has been deprived of an opportunity to attend the appeal
hearing.
- 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 also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the
courts had refused to recognise his right to receive child benefits
and had dismissed his related claim for arrears.
- Having regard to all the material in its possession,
and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the
Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the rights
and freedoms set out in these provisions in that respect. It follows
that this part of the application must be rejected as being
manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1,
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 1,100 euros (EUR) in respect of non pecuniary
damage. He also claimed EUR 10,000 as pecuniary damage allegedly
sustained as a result of the authorities’ failure to pay him
the child benefits sought in the domestic proceedings.
- The
Government disagreed with both claims considering them
unsubstantiated.
- 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, it awards the applicant EUR 1,100 in respect of
non pecuniary damage for the violation of the applicant’s
right to a fair hearing.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 900 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court. To support his claim he submitted a copy of an
agreement for legal assistance with his representative, a receipt
from the latter for the amount of 38,700 Russian roubles allegedly
equivalent at the time to EUR 900, and a legal bill for EUR 900.
- The
Government disagreed with the claim contending that the expenses
claimed had not been necessary or reasonable as to quantum.
- 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. Regard being had to the documents in its
possession and to the above criteria, the Court considers it
reasonable to award the sum of EUR 900 for the proceedings
before the Court.
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 lack of
notification of the appeal hearing 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,
the following amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the
date of settlement:
(i)
EUR 1,100 (one thousand and one hundred euros), plus any tax that may
be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)
EUR 900 (nine hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of costs and expenses;
(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 10 May 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Christos Rozakis Deputy Registrar President
