CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 30 novembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E1DABD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .sF5ED19DC { width:178.27pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION         CASE OF LADYUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 636/10 and 7 others - see appended list )               JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   30 November 2017           This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Ladyuk and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 9 November 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia 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 applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). 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 domestic courts’ failure to ensure their participation in hearings in the civil proceedings to which they were parties. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained that their right to a fair hearing had been breached on account of the domestic courts’ failure to properly and timely notify them of hearings in the civil proceedings to which they were parties. 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 asked the Court to strike out case no. 636/10, given that the supervisory review instance court quashed a final judgment in the applicant’s case on 19 February 2010. They insisted that she had therefore lost her victim status. From the case documents submitted by the Government it is clear that in fresh proceedings in cassation instance of 24   March 2010 she was again absent from the hearing and there is no indication whether the applicant had been properly notified of that hearing. 8.     In the light of the material in the case file and having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the fresh set of domestic proceedings did not amount to appropriate redress for the alleged violation suffered. The applicant therefore did not lose her status as a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and the Government’s objection in this regard must therefore be rejected. 9.     The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to present one’s case effectively before the court and to enjoy equality of arms with the opposing side, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Steel and Morris v.   the United Kingdom , no.   68416/01, §§   59-60, ECHR 2005-II). 10.     The applicants alleged that they had not received the summonses and/or were not informed in due time of the date and place of hearings in their cases. The Court reiterates that domestic courts must make reasonable efforts to summon the parties to a hearing (see Kolegovy v.   Russia , no.   15226/05, §   42, 1   March 2012, and Babunidze v.   Russia (dec.), no.   3040/03, 15   May 2007). Litigants must also take appropriate measures to ensure effective receipt of correspondence the domestic courts may send them (see Perihan and Mezopotamya Basın Yayın A.Ş. v.   Turkey , no.   21377/03, §   38, 21   January 2014; Boyko v.   Ukraine (dec.), no.   17382/04, 23   October 2007; and Darnay v.   Hungary , no.   36524/97, Commission decision of 16   April 1998). Moreover, the Court has noted that a lack or deficiency of reasons in domestic decisions as regards the proof of receipt of summonses by the applicants, as well as the domestic courts’ failure to assess the necessity to adjourn hearings pending the applicants’ proper notification or to delve on the nature of their legal claims which could have rendered the applicants’ presence unnecessary cannot be made up ex post facto in the Court proceedings, for it cannot take the place of the national courts which had the evidence before them (see Gankin and Others v. Russia, nos.   2430/06 and 3   others , §§   41-42, 31   May 2016 ). 11.     In the leading case of Gankin and Others v. Russia, cited above, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 12.     Having examined all the material submitted to it and lacking any evidence of proper notification of the applicants, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court finds that by proceeding to consider the merits of the applicants’ cases without attempting to ascertain whether they had been or should have been at least aware of the date and time of the hearings, and, if they had not, whether the hearings should have been adjourned, the domestic courts deprived the applicants of the opportunity to present their cases effectively and fell short of their obligation to respect the principle of fair trial enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention. 13.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. III.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     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.” 15.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 16.     The Court 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, 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Declares the applications admissible;   3.     Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unfairness of the civil proceedings;   4.     Holds (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 30 November 2017, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Luis López Guerra Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (applicant’s absence from civil proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Nature of the dispute First-instance hearing date Court Appeal hearing date Court Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     636/10 01/12/2009 Viktoriya Yuryevna Ladyuk 19/09/1971 defamation proceedings 02/04/2009   Yeravninskiy District Court of the Republic of Buryatiya 01/07/2009   Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatiya 1,500     32116/12 12/04/2012 Lyudmila Borisovna Musina 07/05/1959 pension arrears dispute 25/07/2011   Leninskiy District Court of Nizhniy Tagil   13/10/2011   Sverdlovsk Regional Court 1,500     17581/13 05/02/2013 Rimma Rifatovna Nazipova 27/08/1982 contractual dispute 25/04/2012   Mirninskiy District Court of the Sakha-Yakutiya Republic 08/08/2012   Supreme Court of the Sakha-Yakutiya Republic   1,500     28826/13 18/03/2013 Lidiya Mikhaylovna Karenkina 10/08/1938 land dispute between private parties 11/04/2012   Biyskiy District Court of the Altayskiy Region   19/09/2012   Altayskiy Regional Court 1,500     32029/13 05/04/2013 Anton Alekseyevich Merkushev 28/01/1987 communal services dispute 28/11/2012   Gatchina Town Court of the Leningradskiy Region 21/02/2013   Leningradskiy Regional Court 1,500     37126/13 05/11/2008 Lev Mustakimovich Azanbayev 15/12/1947 non-pecuniary damages for unlawful criminal prosecution 29/05/2008   Beloyarsk Town Court of the Khanty-Mansiysk - Yugra Region 19/08/2008   Khanty-Mansiysk - Yugra Regional Court 1,500     45064/13 14/06/2013 Aleksandr Vladimirovich Barminskiy 12/01/1985 reinstatement at work and non-pecuniary damage for illegal dismissal 07/02/2013   Dubna Town Court of the Moscow Region 17/04/2013   Moscow Regional Court 1,500     54123/13 23/07/2013 Yekaterina Vasilyevna Shlykova 10/03/1956 insurance dispute with employer 29/10/2012   Pravoberezhnyy District Court of Lipetsk 23/01/2013   Lipetsk Regional Court 1,500     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.