THIRD SECTION

CASE OF PARCHIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 41337/04, 26332/05, 34812/05, 469/06, and 11092/07)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

12 July 2016

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

In the case of Parchiyev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Helena Jäderblom, President,
	Dmitry Dedov,
	Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 21 June 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in five applications (nos. 441337/04, 26332/05, 34812/05, 469/06 and 11092/07) 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 five Russian nationals. The applicants’ details and the dates of their applications to the Court appear in the Appendix.
2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
3.  The applicants complained, inter alia, of the quashing of final domestic judgments by way of supervisory review, as existed prior to 2008.
4.  On various dates indicated in the Appendix these complaints were communicated to the respondent Government.
THE FACTS
Article I.	I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5.  All the applicants were party to civil proceedings in which the first‑instance and appeal courts found in their favour. These judgments became final but were subsequently quashed by the supervisory review courts on the grounds of incorrect application of substantive law or incorrect assessment of evidence by lower courts (for more details see the Appendix).
Article II.	II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
6.  The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure in force between 1 February 2003 and 7 January 2008 is summarised in Kot v. Russia (no. 20887/03, § 17, 18 January 2007).
THE LAW
Article III.	I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
7.  Given that these six applications concern similar facts and complaints and raise almost identical issues under the Convention, the Court will consider them in a single judgment (see Kazakevich and 9 other “Army Pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 14290/03, 19089/04, 42059/04, 27800/04, 43505/04, 43538/04, 3614/05, 30906/05, 39901/05 and 524/06, § 15, 14 January 2010).
Article IV.	II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING OF THE JUDGMENTS IN THE APPLICANTS’ FAVOUR
8.  All the applicants complained of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the quashing by way of supervisory review of the final judgments in their favour. They further complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in relation to the same facts. The Court will consider all these cases in the light of both provisions, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law ...”
Section 4.01	A.  Admissibility
9.  The Court notes that those complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
Section 4.02	B.  Merits
10.  The Government argued that the supervisory review proceedings resulting in the quashing of the judgments at issue had been lawful: they had been initiated by the defendant authorities within the time-limits provided by domestic law. The supervisory review courts had quashed lower courts’ judgments that had been based on an incorrect application of the substantive law, thus correcting flagrant injustices and eliminating dangerous precedents.
11.  The applicants reiterated their complaints.
12.  The Court observes that it has already found numerous violations of the Convention on account of the quashing of final judgments by way of supervisory review under the Code of Civil Procedure, as in force at the material time (see, among many other authorities, Kot, cited above, § 29; Kovalenko and Others v. Russia, [Committee], nos. 36299/03, 14222/04, 15030/04, 36581/04, 1407/05, 2071/05 and 24618/05, 8 December 2015; and Zelenkevich and Others v. Russia, [Committee], no. 14805/02, 20 June 2013). The Court does not see any reasons to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
13.  The Court accordingly concludes that the quashing of the final judgments in the applicants’ favour by way of supervisory review amounts to a breach of the principle of legal certainty, in violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
Article V.	III.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
14.  Lastly, all the applicants, except in the case of Anisimova, in addition complained under Articles 6, 13, 14, 17, 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of other violations, such as the length of proceedings, lack of an effective domestic remedy against the quashing by way of supervisory review of final domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour, the impartiality of the courts and the outcome of the proceedings.
15.  In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court 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 they are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
Article VI.	IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
16.  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.”
Section 6.01	A.  Damage
17.  The Court notes at the outset that in the Bodnaryuk case the applicant limited her claim only to pecuniary damage. As regards the other applicants, they submitted, as far as their admissible complaints are concerned, claims in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage ranging from 16,362 euros (EUR) to EUR 608,101.
18.  The Government considered their claims as being excessive and unreasonable.
19.  As regards pecuniary damage claimed by Mr Parchiyev, Ms Bodnaryuk and Ms Ignatkina, the Court observes that the final judgments in their favour did not award the applicants any specific sum. In these circumstances, the Court cannot assume the role of the national authorities in calculating the sums due as a result of the domestic judgments (see Lenchenkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 16076/06, 42096/06, 44466/06 and 25182/07, § 37, 21 October 2010).
20.  Mr Parchiyev and Ms Ignatkina further claimed non-pecuniary damage. Having regard to the principles developed in its case-law, the Court awards EUR 2,000 to each of Mr Parchiyev and Ms Ignatkina (see Streltsov and other “Novocherkassk military pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 8549/06 and 86 others, § 96, 29 July 2010).
21.  As for Mrs Anisimova and Mr Filipenko, the Court accepts that they must have sustained some pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as a result of the quashing of final domestic judgments in their favour. However, their claims in this respect appear to be excessive. Having regard to the principles developed in its case-law on determination of compensation in similar cases (see, for instance, Kovalenko and Others, §§ 42-43, cited above, Goncharova and Others and 68 other “Privileged Pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 23113/08 and 68 others, §§ 22‑24, 15 October 2009), the Court considers it reasonable and equitable to award a total of EUR 5,000 each to Mrs Anisimova and Mr Filipenko to cover all heads of damage.
Section 6.02	B.  Costs and expenses
22.  In the Filipenko case the applicant claimed EUR 476 for costs and expenses.
23.  The Government contested partially the amount claimed as being unsubstantiated.
24.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award Mr Filipenko EUR 300 in respect of costs and expenses (see, for a similar approach, Ryabov and 151 other “Privileged pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 4563/07 and 10 others, §§ 20-23, 17 December 2009).
Section 6.03	C.  Default interest
25.  The Court 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, in respect of all the applications, the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the quashing by way of supervisory review of final domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

3.  Holds, in respect of all the applicants, that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the quashing by way of supervisory review proceedings of the final domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour;

4.  Holds
(a)  that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable:
(i)  EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) each to Mr Parchiyev and Mrs Ignatkina in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)  EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) each to Mrs Anisimova and Mr Filipenko, in respect of all heads of damage;
(iii)   EUR 300 (three hundred euros) to Mr Filipenko in respect of costs and expenses (see “Just satisfaction granted” in the Appendix);
(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;

5.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 July 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Fatoş Aracı	Helena Jäderblom
	Deputy Registrar	President

APPENDIX

No.	Application no. and date of introduction	Applicant name
Date of birth
Place of residence
Nationality
Represented by	Date of communication	Final domestic judgment
a) date of delivery
b) date of becoming final	Award(s)	Quashing
	Just satisfaction granted	
1.		41337/04
25/09/2004
	Ruslan Magometovich PARCHIYEV
21/04/1948
Karabulak
Russian
	27/09/2009	Sunzhenskiy District Court of the Republic of Ingushetia
31/05/2001
13/06/2001
The State Registry Office of the Ministry of Justice	The court found the refusal to register the applicant as an entrepreneur unlawful	Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ingushetia
04/08/2004	EUR 2,000	
2.		26332/05
29/06/2005
	Valentina Alekseyevna IGNATKINA
01/02/1946
Kazan
Russian
	27/08/2009	Sovetskiy District Court 
25/02/2003
03/04/2003
Sberbank local branch 	Restoration of the initial interest rate (190%)
	Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarastan 
09/02/2005	EUR 2,000	
3.		34812/05
26/08/2005
	Valentina Stepanovna ANISIMOVA
31/07/1954
Orsk
Russian

Sergey Ivanovich KIRYUKHIN
	12/10/2009	Oktyabrskiy District Court of Orsk
27/02/2004
11/05/2004
Private party	Title to a room (9m2) in Orsk, Russia.	Presidium of the Orenburg Regional Court
30/05/2005	EUR 5,000	
4.		469/06
07/11/2005
	Yuliya Aleksandrovna BODNARYUK
28/01/1986
Murmansk
Russian
	27/08/2009	Okyabrskiy Court of Murmansk
20/07/2004
03/11/2004
Sberbank local branch 	Restoration of the initial interest rate (190%) 	Presidium of the Murmansk Regional Court
29/05/2006		
5.		11092/07
16/02/2007
	Sergey Gennadyevich FILIPENKO
12/04/1976
Novosibirsk
Russian
	19/06/2012	Federal District Court of Moshkovskiy District
29/12/2005
10/01/2006
Private party, local branch of the Traffic Police	Title to a car, registration of the title	Presidium of the Novosibirsk Regional Court
17/11/2006	EUR 5,000+ EUR 300