"Íàøè ìåðòâûå íàñ íå îñòàâÿò â áåäå.
Íàøè ïàâøèå - êàê ÷àñîâûå"
Îáðàùåíèå ê ÅÑÏ× â ñâÿçè ñ îáíàðóåíèåì íåäîñòà÷è ìàòåðèàëîâ è íåñîáëþäåíèåì ïðàâèòåëüñòâîì ÐÔ ñðîêîâ îòâåòà íà âîïðîñû Ñóäà
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
F - 67075 Strasbourg-Cedex
From: The Second Applicant
The First Applicant
On August 4, 2015 I, Olga Olegovna Andronova, the Second Applicant in Application ¹75947/11 Davydov vs Russia, familiarized myself with the materials of the abovementioned case.
The decision to visit the Court in person to familiarize themselves with the case materials was taken by O.O.Andronova and A.V.Davidov for the following reasons:
- The first round of communications ended with the Russian Federation having presented their memorandum, which did not contain answers per se to the questions posed by the Court (this was stated in detail in the Applicants’ Memorandum);
- On May 22, 2015 the Russian Federation submitted to the Court 432 pages of court decisions and other service documents; out of them only 40 pages had anything to do with the case materials. No answers to the questions addressed to the Russian Federation were submitted to the Court; no explanation was given for sending irrelevant documents in the Russian language by the Russian Federation. Moreover, the Russian Federation asked for additional time to translate the documents into English. Apparently the same document should have contained the reasons and explanations for submitting almost 400 pages of irrelevant documents. This was not done.
- In its letter dated June 5, 2015 the Court satisfied the request and gave the Russian Federation additional time period to submit the necessary documents to the Court in one of the Court’s languages not later than July 1, 2015.
- One month after the abovementioned term, having received no information from the Court and considering the abovementioned flagrant disrespect on the part of the Russian Federation expressed in slapdash attitude to the Court, I decided to visit the European Court of Human Rights and familiarize myself with the case materials to understand the reasons of the delay.
On July 28, 2015 O.O.Andronova sent a fax request to the Court, asking to choose from three alternatives to arrange for a possible date and time for the Applicant to study the case materials. However, in a week’s time no answer was received. Fortunately, O.O.Andronova managed to familiarize herself with the case materials, and a representative of the First Section, who guided the process, confirmed that the request had been received by the Court but could not explain why no answer had been given.
Basing on the results of the study of the materials and after discussion thereof with lawyers and the First Applicant in the Application, A.Davidov, we came to several conclusions and consider it necessary to bring them to the notice of the Court:
1. The case materials contain the answer of the Court’s Secretary dated June 22, 2015 which confirms the fact of receipt from the Russian Federation the letter dated June 18, 2015 asking for additional time to translate into English the answer to the Court’s questions (apparently memorandum in the second round of communication), to be submitted in future as well. In other words, having already received extension of the term to submit the documents the Russian Federation again failed to produce the memorandum even in Russian, asking for additional time under the pretext of submitting the document in English straightaway.
2. The Court granted the additional time period to the Russian Federation, the expiration date being November 2, 2015. Thus:
• Having communicated the complaint of the Russian Federation in its letter dated March 24, 2014, the Court set the term to submit the memorandum until July 15, 2014, i.e. 4 months.
• Not having managed to produce answers to the Court’s questions, on July 15, 2014 the Russian Federation asked for extension.
• The Court extended the term until October 14, 2014, i.e. the term equaled 7 months.
• On October 14, 2014 the memorandum was submitted in Russian only, in which respect the Russian Federation asked for additional time to submit the English version of the document.
• By its letter dated November 10, 2014 the Court extended the term for the Russian Federation to submit the English version of its memorandum until December 8, 2014, which made 10 months.
• On May 22, 2015 the Russian Federation submitted 432 pages of irrelevant information without explanations, requesting additional time to produce the English version thereof.
• The Court extended the term until July 1, 2015.
• On June 18, 2015 the Russian Federation again asked for extension by reason of unknown circumstances, which O.Andronova did not manage to find out as she was not given the request of the Russian Federation dated June 18, 2015 (if at all in case materials);
• The Court again gave the Russian Federation additional time until November 2, 2015. The total term for the Russian Federation to submit the memorandum thus equals 14 months.
• Summarizing the above it shall be said that for as long as a year, and considering the extension until November for one year and four (4) months, the Russian Federation has been shrinking from submitting its answers to the Court’s questions. We, Andrei Davidov and Olga Andronova, hope that this fact will be duly considered by the Court.
Delays and failure to submit the answers to the Court’s questions give rise to even more puzzlement considering that the Applicants not only passed all the necessary court stages in the Russian Federation but also won the case in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation vs the Russian Government (the Applicants being the same). That was the first time in 15 years that the Russian citizens managed to demonstrate to the government wrongfulness of their actions, more specifically the imperfect nature of the current electoral law. In the abovementioned procedures, including the Constitutional Court, numerous questions posed by the Court within the framework of the Application were already discussed.
3. The copies of the request submitted by the Russian Federation dated June 18, 2015, as well as the very decision of the Court to extend the term dated June 22, 2015 were not received by the Applicants.
4. As far as I understood from the case materials, every letter and every fact submitted by the Applicants are sent to the Russian Federation for information purposes. This line of conduct is quite clear, considering that for the most transparent procedure the parties shall clearly understand positions of each other. At the same time, the case materials contain the letter sent by the Russian Federation dated May 22, 2015 Ref. ¹10-2459-15. The abovementioned document is the answer to the Applicants’ letter dated March 12, 2015 concerning the pressure exerted by the Russian Federation in respect of the Applicants, including Olga Andronova and Andrei Davidov. This letter was not sent to the Applicants, and during my visit to the Court I was only allowed to familiarize myself with it after my second request and after I indicated the personal information the letter contains.
Not engaging in arguments with the representative of the Russian Federation concerning what the case in fact was and the real reasons which had made O.Andronova urgently leave the medical institution in Russia and fly to Germany in bad medical condition (this information is set forth in the abovementioned letter dated March 12, 2015), it should be said the position of the Russian Federation stated in the letter dated May 22, 2015 Ref.¹10-2459-15 directly concerns the Second Applicant and contains the facts which cannot be obtained directly in writing on the territory of the country. These facts are of essence, as they will be used in considering the issue of insurance compensation of the costs incurred in connection with the Russian Federation’s failure to perform their obligations in providing emergency medical care.
As the representative of the Russian Federation rightly pointed out, the refusal to provide medical care can form the grounds of a separate trial, whether on the territory of the Russian Federation or abroad, and for this reason we see the refusal to provide the Second Applicant with this document as groundless.
During her visit to the Court the Second Applicant personally submitted the documents registered by the Court, the stamp applied(Appendix ¹1). More than 1.5 months ago these documents were sent by fax, yet they are not in the case materials. The second Applicant had the documents at her disposal by chance only. The abovementioned circumstance causes concern in respect of reliability of fax transmission of documents and chances of such documents being “lost” in such case.
The letter submitted to the Court on August 4, 2015 contained the information that the documents submitted by the Russian Federation on May 22, 2015 are 90% irrelevant to the case, and considering the lack of any explanations to the information provided, all 100% irrelevant. Considering the above, the Applicants notified the Court on inexpediency of giving to the Russian Federation additional time to produce the translation of the irrelevant documents. The Applicants hesitate to make the flat assertion that if this document had been received by the Court the decision on the extension of the term would not have been passed, but its absence seems a strange coincidence.
5. Failure to provide the letter dated May 22, 2015 Ref.¹10-2459-15 for unknown reasons seems strange as well due to the fact that it contains answers to the questions about several Applicants’ withdrawal from the Application (art.18-24). It shall be pointed out as well that the letter dated May 22, 2015 Ref.¹10-2459-15, which was not provided to us, contained statements (see art.23 and 24) which indirectly confirm that change in Applicant Payalin’s position was too unexpected: on April 4, 2014 the latter issued a new power of attorney, apparently ready to participate, while on July 25, 2014, as part of the State’s response, he withdrew from the Application.
6. The case materials contain the information on transferring the case from one lawyer to another without indication of any reason and in unofficial manner inappropriate in such serious cases (Appendix ¹2). Both members of the Court’s personnel are apparently Russian citizens. We are aware that in cases involving Russian citizens considered by the Court there already was the case of disappearance of the case “Shutov (III) v.Russia ¹20922/08 communicated by the Court on September 14, 2010. Considering the abovementioned ambiguity and inaccuracies in respect of submitting the documents in our case, to avoid further misunderstanding we earnestly ask to hand over the case to non-Russian citizens, who the Russian government cannot exert the pressure on.
For our part, we, the Applicants, are ready to submit all documents straightaway in official languages of the Court – English, French or German.
Olga Andronova _____________________
Andrei Davidov _____________________ «____» _________________ 2015