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 ÂŁ5, 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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

European Court of Human Rights


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> RODINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 81202/17 (Judgment : Article 6 - Right to a fair trial : Third Section Committee) [2022] ECHR 961 (10 November 2022)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2022/961.html
Cite as: [2022] ECHR 961, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:1110JUD008120217, CE:ECHR:2022:1110JUD008120217

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]


 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF RODINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 81202/17 and 9 others –
see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

10 November 2022

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.


In the case of Rodina and Others v. Russia,


The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Darian Pavli, President,

Andreas Zünd,

Frédéric Krenc, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,


Having deliberated in private on 20 October 2022,


Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE


1.  The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.


2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS


3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.


4.  The applicants complained of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

THE LAW

I.        JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS


5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention


6.  The applicants complained of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”


7.  The relevant principles of the Court’s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention can be found in the leading case of Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§ 51-57, 20 September 2016, with further references). In that case the Court assessed the national rules of administrative procedure and concluded that the statutory requirement allowing for the national judicial authorities to consider an administrative offence case which falls within the ambit of Article 6 of the Convention under its criminal limb, in the absence of a prosecuting authority, was incompatible with the principle of objective impartiality set out in Article 6 of the Convention.


8.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of the complaints in the present case.


9.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION


10.  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.”


11.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Kuratov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 24377/15 and 2 others, 22 October 2019), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.


12.  The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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,

1.      Decides to join the applications;

2.      Declares the applications admissible;

3.      Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;

4.      Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 November 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

      Viktoriya Maradudina                                                Darian Pavli
    Acting Deputy Registrar                                                President

 

                       

 


APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Penalty

Date of final domestic decision

Name of court

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros) [1]

 

81202/17

21/11/2017

Yuliya Valeryevna RODINA

1973

 

 

fine of RUB 10,000

02/11/2017, Tsentralnyy District Court of Komsomolsk-on-Amur

1,000

 

82114/17

27/11/2017

Igor Sergeyevich LABZENEV

1965

Vologin Aleksey Borisovich

Volsk

fine of RUB 30,000;

suspension of driving licence for 1 year and 6 months

04/08/2017, Volskiy District Court of Saratov Region

1,000

 

3623/18

25/12/2017

Yevgeniy Vladimirovich SOSNIN

1982

Kulakov Yevgeniy Valeryevich

Arkhangelsk

suspension of driving licence for 1 year and 4 months

19/12/2017, Arkhangelsk Regional Court

1,000

 

4810/18

19/01/2018

Valeriy Kamoyevich MELKUMYAN

1996

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

fine of RUB 15,000

20/07/2017, Moscow City Court

1,000

 

5486/18

18/01/2018

Sergey Yuryevich MAZIN

1965

Vologin Aleksey Borisovich

Volsk

fine of RUB 10,000

24/10/2017, Volskiy District Court of the Saratov Region

1,000

 

5614/18

17/01/2018

Fedor Sergeyevich ONISHCHUK

1981

 

 

suspension of driving licence for 1 year

04/08/2017, Cheryomushkinskiy District Court of Moscow

1,000

 

8417/18

04/01/2018

Ivan Yuryevich MEZENTSEV

1985

Kulakov Yevgeniy Valeryevich

Arkhangelsk

fine of RUB 5,000

14/12/2017, Solombalskiy District Court of the Arkhangelsk Region

1,000

 

9650/18

22/01/2018

Andrey Sergeyevich BESPALOV

1988

Kulakov Yevgeniy Valeryevich

Arkhangelsk

fine of RUB 30,000

22/11/2017, Sombalskiy District Court of the Arkhangelsk Region

1,000

 

12571/18

10/02/2018

Yevgeniy Vasilyevich SUMAROKOV

1987

Kulakov Yevgeniy Valeryevich

Arkhangelsk

suspension of driving licence for 4 months

06/02/2018, Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk

1,000

 

15475/18

16/03/2018

Aleksey Vasilyevich OSADCHIY

1992

Kuzmin Konstantin Aleksandrovich

Kirovskiy

7 days’ administrative arrest

11/10/2017, Primorye Regional Court

1,000

 



[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2022/961.html