Acceptance of out-of-court civil remedies overturns the balance of fair trial
JUDGMENT
Magomedov and others v. Russia 28-03-2017 (no. 33636/09, 34493/09, 35940/09, 36054/09, 37441/09, 38237/09, 45415/09, 50333/09, 28480/13, and 28506/13)
SUMMARY
Violation of a fair trial. Accepting an out-of-date appeal. The applicants had taken part in the emergency operations in Chernobyl. At different dates, the applicants filed a lawsuit against the national authorities, disputing the inadequacy of the gross benefits and the additional benefits they were entitled to because of their participation in the emergency operations at the Chernobyl nuclear power station. All their appeals were admitted at first instance, but the authorities filed out-of-court appeals. On the basis, in particular, of Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicants complained of the unlawful acceptance of appeals lodged out of time by the various state authorities, which resulted in the final decisions in their favor being set aside. The Court has held that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
PROVISION
Article 6 par. 1
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicants are 13 Russian nationals who took part in the emergency operations on the site of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster. They live in various regions of the Russian Federation. The case concerned the setting aside of final judgments delivered in favour of the applicants following the acceptance of appeals that had been lodged out of time by the State authorities against those judgments.
On various dates the applicants took judicial action against the national authorities, challenging the inadequacy of the assorted allowances and additional benefits to which they were entitled in their capacity as participants in the emergency operations on the site of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster. They all won their cases at first instance. As the national authorities had not appealed within the statutory deadlines, the judgments became final and their execution began. The authorities subsequently lodged late appeals, accompanied by applications for leave to appeal
out of time under Article 112 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These applications were granted by the domestic courts and the out-of-time appeals were accepted. On appeal, the previous judgments
were set aside. The applicants were not required to reimburse the amounts received in application of the first-instance judgments before these were set aside. Some applicants reimbursed
overpayments corresponding to the period after the date on which the relevant judgments were set aside.
Relying in particular on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complained of the unlawful acceptance of the appeals submitted out of time by the various State entities, which had resulted in the setting aside of final judgments in their favour.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 6 § 1 – concerning applications nos. 33636/09, 34493/09, 35940/09, 37441/09, 38237/09, 28480/13 et 28506/13
The Court further declared applications nos. 36054/09, 45415/09 and 50333/09 inadmissible.
Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.
