I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in NUSALOVA v. RUSSIA.
Information
- Judgment date: 2022-06-23
- Communication date: 2017-02-08
- Application number(s): 17492/16
- Country: RUS
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 3
- Conclusion:
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings
Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)
Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) - Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
JURI Prediction
- Probability: 0.63124
- Prediction: Violation
Consistent
Legend
Communication text used for prediction
Application no 17492/16Yekaterina Vladimirovna NUSALOVAagainst Russialodged on 1 April 2016 The applicant, Ms Yekaterina Vladimirovna Nusalova, is a Russian national, born in 1979 in Murmansk.
She is represented before the Court by Mr S. Peteryakov, a lawyer practising in Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A.
Conviction On 26 March 2015 the applicant was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced by the Pervomaiyskiy District Court of Murmansk to seven years’ imprisonment in a correctional colony.
B.
Medical treatment Prior to the arrest, the applicant was diagnosed with HIV and hepatitis C. According to her, in a remand prison she complained about a lump in the right breast, but the prison doctor was unable to properly examine her, and therefore he advised to wait until the upcoming transfer to a correctional colony.
On 23 June 2015 the applicant was admitted to correctional colony no.
20/02 in the Leningrad Region where she was diagnosed with fibrocystic breast changes, and noncancerous breast lumps.
Three months later the applicant’s lymph nodes enlarged.
Having noted this symptom, a prison doctor ordered her transport to Gaaza prison hospital in St Petersburg (“the prison hospital”).
On 22 September 2015, already in the prison hospital, the applicant was diagnosed with the end-stage breast cancer with the metastatic spread to uterus, ovary and bones.
The applicant submits that only symptomatic medical treatment was available to her in the hospital, while curative treatment, such as chemotherapy, was not provided.
Upon her return to the correctional colony in the late March 2016, she was denied even the basic treatment, including pain-relief medication.
C. Application for early release on health grounds On 22 January 2016 a medical panel examined the applicant and concluded that her medical condition warranted her early release.
On 17 March 2016 the Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg examined the application to that effect.
At the hearing the applicant’s attending doctor from the prison hospital stated that her life expectancy was no more than three months and that her medical condition called for chemotherapy, which could have extended her life.
However, the hospital was not licensed to provide such treatment.
Therefore the treatment consisted exclusively of painkillers.
The prosecutor argued that should the applicant’s health deteriorate, she would be transferred to a cancer hospital.
Having heard the parties, the court dismissed the application for early release.
It held as follows: “... [the applicant] receives medical treatment, including painkillers and vitamins.
The fact that her transfer to a cancer hospital [where she could receive the radiation therapy] is complicated by bureaucratic formalities does not mean that [she] does not receive medical treatment adequate to her diagnosis and cannot expect receiving other types of medical treatment.” On 26 March 2016 the applicant challenged the above decision before the St Petersburg City Court.
Her appeal is pending.
D. Application for interim measures On 1 April 2016 the applicant lodged with the Court a request for interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
On 4 April 2016 the Court granted the request requiring the Russian Government to ensure the applicant’s immediate access to the necessary medical treatment as recommended by her attending doctor.
The Court also noted that, if the penitentiary medical institutions were unable to ensure such treatment, the applicant should be transferred to a civilian medical institution.
COMPLAINTS The applicant, in substance, complains about the quality of medical treatment in detention and about the absence of effective domestic remedies for her to complain in that respect.
Judgment
FOURTH SECTIONCASE OF VASSILYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
(Application no. 20193/15 and 2 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 June 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Vassilyan and Others v. Armenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Jolien Schukking, President, Armen Harutyunyan, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 June 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Armenia 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 Armenian 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 excessive length of civil proceedings. In applications nos. 20193/15 and 36396/17, the applicants also raised complaints under Article 13 of the Convention. THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 6. The applicants complained principally that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
7. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies, arguing that they could have lodged an application with the domestic courts seeking an acknowledgement of a violation of their right to a fair trial and obtained compensation based on the provisions of the Civil Code in force from 1 January 2016 concerning the right to claim compensation from the State for non-pecuniary damage (see Shirkhanyan v. Armenia, no. 54547/16, §§ 103-06, 22 February 2022). In respect of application no. 20193/15, they also submitted that the applicant had lodged her complaint outside the six-month time-limit set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. 8. The applicants contested the Government’s arguments. 9. As regards the Government’s objection related to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court has previously found that the Armenian domestic system did not provide an effective remedy in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings (see Fil LLC v. Armenia, no. 18526/13, §§ 49-50, 31 January 2019). The Court sees no reason to depart from that finding in the present cases as, in its opinion, the Government failed to substantiate the effectiveness in practice of the remedy they invoke (see McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, §§ 107 and 120, 10 September 2010, and Panju v. Belgium, no. 18393/09, §§ 62-63, 28 October 2014). 10. As to their second objection in respect of application no. 20193/15, the Court observes that the applicant’s complaint concerned a continuing situation and it was lodged when the domestic proceedings were still pending (see Sabri Güneş v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, § 54, 29 June 2012). Hence, her complaint cannot be dismissed as lodged outside the six-month period. 11. The Court therefore dismisses the Government’s objections. It further notes that the applicants’ complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. 12. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 13. In the leading case of Fil LLC (cited above), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 14. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 15. These complaints therefore disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 16. In applications nos. 20193/15 and 36396/17, the applicants submitted other complaints which raised issues under Article 13 of the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Fil LLC (cited above, §§ 49‐50). 17. 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.”
18. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see Fil LLC, cited above, §§ 62 and 65), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 19. 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,
(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 23 June 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Jolien Schukking
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Other complaints under
well-established case-law
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
20193/15
14/04/2015
Zabel-A VASSILYAN
1956
Monika Hakobyan
Yerevan
04/07/2012
21/03/2019
6 years and 8 months and 18 days
1 level of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings
2,400
250
36396/17
13/05/2017
Areknaz MANUKYAN
1945
Anahit Beglaryan
Yerevan
09/11/2011
18/12/2019
8 years and 1 month and 10 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings
1,200
250
54641/17
08/07/2017
Armine SANOYAN
1970
Hayk Alumyan
Yerevan
08/07/2008
pending
More than 13 years and 9 months and 21 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
4,800
250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF VASSILYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
(Application no. 20193/15 and 2 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 June 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Vassilyan and Others v. Armenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Jolien Schukking, President, Armen Harutyunyan, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 June 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Armenia 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 Armenian 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 excessive length of civil proceedings. In applications nos. 20193/15 and 36396/17, the applicants also raised complaints under Article 13 of the Convention. THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 6. The applicants complained principally that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
7. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies, arguing that they could have lodged an application with the domestic courts seeking an acknowledgement of a violation of their right to a fair trial and obtained compensation based on the provisions of the Civil Code in force from 1 January 2016 concerning the right to claim compensation from the State for non-pecuniary damage (see Shirkhanyan v. Armenia, no. 54547/16, §§ 103-06, 22 February 2022). In respect of application no. 20193/15, they also submitted that the applicant had lodged her complaint outside the six-month time-limit set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. 8. The applicants contested the Government’s arguments. 9. As regards the Government’s objection related to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court has previously found that the Armenian domestic system did not provide an effective remedy in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings (see Fil LLC v. Armenia, no. 18526/13, §§ 49-50, 31 January 2019). The Court sees no reason to depart from that finding in the present cases as, in its opinion, the Government failed to substantiate the effectiveness in practice of the remedy they invoke (see McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, §§ 107 and 120, 10 September 2010, and Panju v. Belgium, no. 18393/09, §§ 62-63, 28 October 2014). 10. As to their second objection in respect of application no. 20193/15, the Court observes that the applicant’s complaint concerned a continuing situation and it was lodged when the domestic proceedings were still pending (see Sabri Güneş v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, § 54, 29 June 2012). Hence, her complaint cannot be dismissed as lodged outside the six-month period. 11. The Court therefore dismisses the Government’s objections. It further notes that the applicants’ complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. 12. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 13. In the leading case of Fil LLC (cited above), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 14. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 15. These complaints therefore disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 16. In applications nos. 20193/15 and 36396/17, the applicants submitted other complaints which raised issues under Article 13 of the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Fil LLC (cited above, §§ 49‐50). 17. 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.”
18. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see Fil LLC, cited above, §§ 62 and 65), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 19. 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,
(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 23 June 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Jolien Schukking
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Other complaints under
well-established case-law
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
20193/15
14/04/2015
Zabel-A VASSILYAN
1956
Monika Hakobyan
Yerevan
04/07/2012
21/03/2019
6 years and 8 months and 18 days
1 level of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings
2,400
250
36396/17
13/05/2017
Areknaz MANUKYAN
1945
Anahit Beglaryan
Yerevan
09/11/2011
18/12/2019
8 years and 1 month and 10 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings
1,200
250
54641/17
08/07/2017
Armine SANOYAN
1970
Hayk Alumyan
Yerevan
08/07/2008
pending
More than 13 years and 9 months and 21 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
4,800
250
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Other complaints under
well-established case-law
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
20193/15
14/04/2015
Zabel-A VASSILYAN
1956
Monika Hakobyan
Yerevan
04/07/2012
21/03/2019
6 years and 8 months and 18 days
1 level of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings
2,400
250
36396/17
13/05/2017
Areknaz MANUKYAN
1945
Anahit Beglaryan
Yerevan
09/11/2011
18/12/2019
8 years and 1 month and 10 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings
1,200
250
54641/17
08/07/2017
Armine SANOYAN
1970
Hayk Alumyan
Yerevan
08/07/2008
pending
More than 13 years and 9 months and 21 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
4,800
250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.