MALMBERG AND OTHER APPLICATIONS v. RUSSIA - 23045/05 (Communicated Case) [2012] ECHR 1239 (03 July 2012)
The core issue is whether the Russian courts complied with the public pronouncement requirement of Article 6 § 1 ECHR, either by reading out the full or operative part of the judgments or by making the reasoned judgments public by other means.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] ECHR 1239
- Parties
- Applicant: Mariya Gennadyevna Malmberg; Applicant: Yevgeniya Yekimovna Shubina; Applicant: Mikhaydar Ayseyevich Tazikov; Applicant: Sergey Nikolayevich Vorobyev; Applicant: Svetlana Yuryevna Sautchenkova; Applicant: Olga Ivanovna Shevchenok; Applicant: Marina Fedorovna Surkova; Respondent: Government of Russia
- Jurisdiction
- European Union
- Procedural Posture
- Applications to the European Court of Human Rights / Preliminary Questions to the Government
- Outcome
- Further information requested from the Government; no final determination on merits.
- Legal Topics
- Public Pronouncement of Judgments, Article 6 § 1 ECHR, Access to Court Decisions, Transparency of Judicial Proceedings
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mariya Gennadyevna Malmberg
Applicant
Yevgeniya Yekimovna Shubina
Applicant
Mikhaydar Ayseyevich Tazikov
Applicant
Sergey Nikolayevich Vorobyev
Applicant
Svetlana Yuryevna Sautchenkova
Applicant
Olga Ivanovna Shevchenok
Applicant
Marina Fedorovna Surkova
Applicant
Government of Russia
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Applications to the European Court of Human Rights / Preliminary Questions to the Government
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judgments of the first-instance and appeal courts were pronounced publicly as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
- 2 Whether only the operative part of the judgments was read out and if the reasoned judgments were made public by other means
- 3 When the reasoned judgments in their final forms were prepared
Ratio Decidendi
The core issue is whether the Russian courts complied with the public pronouncement requirement of Article 6 § 1 ECHR, either by reading out the full or operative part of the judgments or by making the reasoned judgments public by other means.
Court Disposition
Further information requested from the Government; no final determination on merits.
Orders
- The Government is requested to submit court records of the hearings and operative parts of the judgments.
- The Government is requested to submit statements of the applicants’ appeals in specified applications.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
judgment s in the present case s (see table appended) of the first - instance and the appeal courts pronounced p ublicly, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the reading out of the judgment s of the first-instance and the appeal courts at the hearing s limited to the operative part ( ???????????? ????? ) , and , if so, were the reasoned judgment s, which were prepared after the hearings, made public by any other means (see Ryakib Biryukov v. Russia , no. 14810/02, ECHR 2008 )? 2. When were the reasoned judgments of the first - instance and the appeal courts in their final forms ( ???????????? ?? ?????? ? ???? , ?????? ? ???? ? ????????????? ????? ) prepared? The Government are requested to submit the court records of the hearings ( ????????? ???????? ????????? ) before the first - instance and the appeal courts, and the operative parts ( ???????????? ????? ) of the judgments, unless they were submitted by the applicants. The Government are also requested to submit statements of the applicants ’ appeals against the first-instance courts ’ judgments in applications nos. 23045/05, 39543/08, 48789/09 and 31011/10. APPENDIX No Application no. Lodged on Applicant ’ s name date of birth place of residence Judgments which were not allegedly pronounced publicly 1. 23045/05 03/05/2005 Mariya Gennadyevna MALMBERG 06/10/1957 S t Peter s burg St Petersburg City Court ’ s judgment of 21 December 2004 ( the City C ourt partially quashed Vasileostrovskiy District Court ’ s judgment of 17 March and took a new decision on the merits ). Contractual dispute between private individuals . 2. 39543/08 17/06/2008 Yevgeniya Yekimovna SHUBINA 01/01/1960 Belgorod Belgorodskiy District Court ’ s judgment of 11 March and Belgorod Regional Court ’ s judgment of 22 April 2008 ( the appeal court took a new decision on the merits ). Consumer dispute. 3. 21236/09 02/04/2009 Mikhaydar Ayseyevich TAZIKOV 23/05/1957 Ulyanovsk Ulyanovsk Leninskiy District Court ’ s judgment of 13 October and Ulyanovsk Regional Court ’ s judgment of 25 November ( the District Court ’ s judgment was upheld on appeal ). Dispute between private individuals concerning debt recovery . 4. 48789/09 21/08/2009 Sergey Nikolayevich VOROBYEV 10/11/1965 Saransk Saransk Oktyabrskiy District Court ’ s judgment of 26 December and Mordoviya Republic Supreme Court ’ s judgment of 10 March 2009. Insurance dispute concerning a traffic accident . 5. 58611/09 17/10/2009 Svetlana Yuryevna SAUTCHENKOVA 27/12/1972 Krasnodar Krasnodar Pervomayskiy District Court ’ s judgment of 18 August ( upheld by Krasnodar Regional Court ’ s judgment of 29 September 2009) . Dispute with a private bank concerning validity of a collateral agreement . 6. 17759/10 17/02/2010 Olga Ivanovna SHEVCHENOK 19/02/1958 Tyumen Tavdinskiy District Court ’ s judgment of 26 June 2009 ( upheld by Sverdlovsk Regional Court ’ s judgment of August 2009). Land dispute with a local authority . 7. 31011/10 31/03/2010 Svetlana Yuryevna SAUTCHENKOVA 27/12/1972 Krasnodar Krasnodar Prikubanskiy District Court ’ s judgment of 18 December ( upheld by Krasnodar Regional Court ’ s judgment of 25 February 2010) . Dispute with a private bank concerning the applicant ’ s liability as a guarantor under a bank loan agreement . 8. 48402/10 27/07/2010 Marina Fedorovna SURKOVA 06/06/1946 Moscow Basmanniy District Court ’ s judgment of 30 October and Moscow City Court ’ s judgment of 28 January 2010 ( the District Court ’ s judgment was upheld on appeal ). Labour dispute concerning Federal Service of State St atistics ’ refusal of employment . BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII