SAMOYLENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Inadmissible
Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the Appendix. 2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. Between 1986 and 1987 the applicants took part in the clean-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. They were subsequently registered disabled and became entitled to various social benefits and compensation paid on a regular basis. 5. Considering these benefits insufficient, the applicants together with 482 other people, most of them represented by Ms A., sued the Russian Ministry of Finance for additional compensation corresponding to non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of their participation in the operation. 6. On different dates in February and April 2011 the Nalchik Town Court of Kabardino-Balkaria (“the Town Court”), presided over by Judge Be., allowed their claims in part and awarded each claimant, including the applicants, compensation ranging between 1,200,000 Russian roubles (RUB) and RUB 1,800,000 for non-pecuniary damage. 7. No appeals were lodged against these judgments within the statutory ten-day time-limit. 8. On 26 October 2011 Mr Samoylenko (no. 58068/13), Mr Chechenov (no. 58078/13) and Mr Ovcharov (no. 58429/13) received the amounts awarded by the Town Court. 9. On 21 December 2011 Mr Kuchmezov (no. 58078/13) received his payment. 10. On 6 and 7 June 2011 respectively the Town Court, again presided over by Judge Be., rejected a request by the defendant authority to have the time-limits for appeal extended (“extension request”) on the ground that it had not given a valid reason for its failure to comply with the statutory timelimits. The decision indicated that the defendant authority had been represented at the hearing by Ms B., an employee of the regional department of the State Treasury. 11. On 23 October 2012 the defendant authority lodged an appeal against the decision issued in 2011 by which the Town Court refused to extend the time-limits for appealing against the main judgments. It was accompanied by an extension request. 12. On 15 and 16 November 2012 respectively the Town Court, presided over by Judge Be., granted the defendant authority’s extension request. 13. Mr Chechenov appealed. 14. On 27 December 2012 the regional Supreme Court dismissed his appeal on the grounds that the domestic courts had failed to serve the defendant authority with the main judgments. Moreover, it noted that it was apparent from the transcript of the hearing of 6 June 2011 that the Town Court had neither verified whether Ms B. had been duly appointed to represent the Ministry of Finance nor ascertained her identity. 15. On 28 February 2013 the regional Supreme Court quashed the decisions adopted by the Town Court on 6 and 7 June 2011 and granted the defendant authority’s extension request on the ground that it had had a valid reason for missing the statutory time-limit for appeal. 16. On the same day the regional Supreme Court quashed the main judgments delivered by the Town Court in the applicants’ favour on the grounds that they had been based on a retrospective application of the law. The applicants were ordered to repay the sums received under the judgments. 17. The applicants, all assisted by their lawyers, lodged a supervisory review application. There is no indication that they requested the enforcement proceedings to be suspended pending the examination of their supervisory review application. 18. According to the applicants, they were visited by bailiffs who sought the reimbursement of the sums received under the quashed judgments. 19. On 11 July and 29 August 2013 the Presidium of the regional Supreme Court partially quashed the appeal judgments as regards the applicants’ obligation to reimburse the sums paid. 20. On an unspecified date at the end of 2012 the President of the Supreme Court of Kabardino-Balkaria lodged a request with the Judicial Qualifications Board of Kabardino-Balkaria, seeking to have disciplinary measures taken against Judge Be. for serious procedural violations during the examination of civil claims for compensation by clean-up workers at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. In particular, she had accepted for examination claims failing to comply with the admissibility criteria, had failed to publish her judgments on the court’s website within a reasonable time, had allowed representatives without proper forms of authority to take part in the proceedings, and had failed to properly inform the parties of the decisions taken. 21. On 7 December 2012 the Judicial Qualifications Board found Judge Be. responsible for the serious procedural violations and ordered her removal from office. 22. On 25 October 2013 the North Caucasus investigative committee initiated a criminal investigation against Judge Be. under Article 305 § 2 of the Criminal Code (pronouncement of a deliberately unlawful judgment). 23. On 4 March 2013 the North Caucasus investigative committee opened criminal case no. 70/17-13 against Ms A., the applicants’ representative in the domestic proceedings, under Article 159 of the Criminal Code (fraud). Ms D., the clerk of the Town Court was also prosecuted. 24. According to the Government, in June 2015 both of them decided to plead guilty. 25. On 10 October 2014 Mr Kuchmezov, the head of the regional organisation Chernobyl Union, was arrested on suspicion of fraud. 26. It was established in the course of the investigation that on 22 December 2011 and 26 June 2012 he had withdrawn money from two other former Chernobyl workers’ bank accounts. However, he had not informed them of the exact amounts awarded by the court and had given them only a part of their compensation. 27. Article 112 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCvP”) provides that a court may extend a time-limit for a procedural action, such as lodging an appeal, if it finds that a party has a valid reason for missing it. 28. Under Article 338 of the CCvP, in force before 1 January 2012, an appeal in a civil case could be lodged within ten days of delivery of the firstinstance judgment in its final form. Since 1 January 2012 the timelimit for lodging an appeal has been one month (Article 321 of the CCvP). 29. Article 1109 § 3 of the CCvP stipulates that where a decision to award compensation for damage to health is quashed on appeal or by way of supervisory review, and that decision has been taken in the absence of bad faith and miscalculation on the part of the recipient, the compensation itself cannot be claimed back. 30. Section 39 (2) (1) of the Enforcement Act provides that enforcement proceedings may be suspended by the domestic court if the judgment on the basis of which a writ of execution was issued is amenable to review. Section 45(6) of the same Act provides that no coercive measures may be taken if enforcement proceedings have been stayed.