KASHCHEYEV v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications

 
Communicated on 22 January 2019
 
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 15468/13
Gennadiy Vladimirovich KASHCHEYEV against Russia
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicants are Russian nationals.
2. The application numbers, the dates of lodging the applications, the applicants’ names and their personal details are set out in the Appendix.
3. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
4. The applicants, who had served in various national law-enforcement agencies and had been employed by various legal entities, were dismissed. They challenged their dismissals in the courts.
1. Application no 15468/13 Kashcheyev v. Russia
5. The applicant held a post at the Militia Department no. 2 of the Bratsk Internal Affairs Directorate (Отдел милиции № 2 УВД по г. Братску).
6. On 25 August 2011 the applicant was dismissed on ground of redundancy.
7. The applicant brought an action against the Irkutsk Region Central Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation (ГУ МВД РФ по Иркутской области) for reinstatement, payment of the wages (calculated as an average) for the period of his enforced absence, and compensation for non‑pecuniary damage.
8. On 9 November 2011 the Bratsk City Court of the Irkutsk Region (Братский городской суд Иркутской области) heard arguments from the applicant and his representative, the defendant’s representative and the prosecutor (who argued that the action should be dismissed), and then dismissed the action.
9. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal, to which the prosecutor submitted her objections. On 10 February 2012 the Irkutsk Regional Court (Иркутский областной суд) heard arguments from the prosecutor (who argued that the first-instance judgment is lawful and well-reasoned), and then upheld the first-instance judgment.
2. Application no. 73740/14 Burmistrova v. Russia
10. The applicant held a post at the Tambov Region Directorate of the Federal Drug Control Service of the Russian Federation (Управление Федеральной службы Российской Федерации по контролю за оборотом наркотиков по Тамбовской области).
11. On 7 November 2013 the applicant was dismissed on ground of redundancy.
12. On 25 November 2013 the applicant brought an action against her former employer and the Federal Drug Control Service of the Russian Federation (Федеральная служба Российской Федерации по контролю за оборотом наркотиков) seeking, inter alia, reinstatement, recovery of the service pay for the period of her enforced absence, and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
13. On 3 February 2014 the Tambov Regional Court (Тамбовский областной суд) heard arguments from the applicant, three representatives of the first defendant, one of whom represented also the second defendant, and the prosecutor (who argued that the action should be dismissed), and then dismissed the action.
14. On 28 February 2014 the applicant appealed and on 23 May 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (Верховный суд Российской Федерации) heard arguments from the applicant, the first defendant’s representative, the second defendant’s representative, and the prosecutor (who argued that the first-instance judgment should be upheld), and then upheld the first-instance judgment.
3. Application no 4418/18 Kramareva v. Russia
15. The applicant was a part-time employee of GUP Mosecostroy (ГУП «Мосэкострой»).
16. On 25 June 2016 she brought an action against her employer for payment of wages due.
17. On 7 July 2016 the applicant was dismissed on the ground that a full-time employee had been hired to perform her duties.
18. On 25 July 2016 the applicant amended the earlier statement of claim, adding claims for reinstatement and payment of wages for the period of her enforced absence.
19. On 11 October 2016 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow (Преображенский районный суд г. Москвы) heard arguments from the applicant’s representative, two representatives of the defendant, a representative of the third party Mosinzhproekt JSC (AO «Мосинжпроект»), and the prosecutor (who argued that the action should be granted in part of issue of the certified copies of work-related documents), and then granted the action in part of the issue of the work‑related documents and payment of compensation of RUB 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
20. On 9 November 2016 the applicant appealed and on 2 February 2017 the Moscow City Court (Московский городской суд) heard arguments from the applicant and her representative, the defendant’s representatives, the prosecutor (who argued that the first-instance judgment is lawful and well-reasoned), and then upheld the first-instance judgment.
21. On 5 April 2017 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal and on 28 June 2017 the City Court dismissed it.
22. On 14 July 2017 the applicant lodged her second cassation appeal and on 25 July 2017 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (Верховный суд Российской Федерации) dismissed it.
COMPLAINT
23. The applicants complain that the participation of a prosecutor in the civil proceedings had contravened Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by, inter alia undermining the principle of equality of arms.
QUESTIONS to the parties
1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the involvement of a prosecutor in these proceedings?
 
2. Did the applicants exhaust the available and effective domestic remedies in respect of the prosecutor’s participation in the relevant proceedings? If not, what were the remedies they had at their disposal?
 
3. What were the grounds in the domestic law and/or practice allowing for the prosecutor’s participation in the sets of proceedings in question?
 
4. What were the reasons justifying the prosecutor’s participation in the proceedings?
 
5. Did the domestic courts duly review the above reasons having regard to the individual situation of each party to the proceedings? Did they consider any impact that any such an individual situation might have on the equality of arms in the proceedings?

 
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
date of birth
place of residence
Final judgment 
15468/13
17/01/2013
Gennadiy Vladimirovich KASHCHEYEV
19/03/1985
Bratsk
 
Irkutsk Regional Court,
10 February 2012 
73740/14
 
14/11/2014
Viktoriya Viktorovna BURMISTROVA
19/02/1974
Tambov
 
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation,
23 May 2014 
4418/18
 
19/12/2017
Anastasiya Olegovna KRAMAREVA
29/08/1990
Lyubertsy, Moscow Region
 
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation,
25 July 2017
 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy