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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 LITVINOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 1850/10 and 8 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 Litvinova 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.     THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT SOME APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The Government submitted unilateral declaration in respect of some of these cases which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §   75, ECHR 2003 ‑ VI). II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     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 ...” 8.     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). 9.     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 ). 10.     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. 11.     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. 12.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. III.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     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.” 14.     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. 15.     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.     Rejects the Government’s request to strike some of the applications out of the list;   3.     Declares the applications admissible;   4.     Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unfairness of the civil proceedings;   5.     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   Representative name and location 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 /household (in euros) [1]     1850/10 16/12/2009 Nadezhda Vladimirovna Litvinova 09/08/1958     civil proceedings for recovery of an indebtedness, interest and court fees 06/04/2009   Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk City Court 16/06/2009   Sakhalin Regional Court 1,500     7300/12 16/01/2012 Household   Roman Sergeyevich Zholudev 27/06/1959 Roman Sergeyevich Zholudev 10/09/1989 Nechin Vasiliy Vasilyevich Dmitrov recognition of property title over a flat 08/06/2011   Dmitrov Town Court of the Moscow Region 28/07/2011   Moscow Regional Court 1,500     18261/13 23/01/2013 Tatyana Vitalyevna Perepelitsyna 26/08/1957 Chernyy Sergey Aleksandrovich Armavir reinstatement at work 16/02/2012   Armavir Town Court 24/04/2012   Krasnodar Regional Court 1,500     50086/13 12/07/2013 Valentina Viktorovna Rybas 27/11/1949 Boyev Dmitriy Alekseyevich Norilsk royalties dispute 10/09/2012   Norilsk (Talnakh district) Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region 14/01/2013   Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 1,500     16778/14 07/02/2014 Yevgeniy Sergeyevich Mikhleyev 17/05/1990 Gazizova Yelena Sergeyevna Naberezhnyye Chelny pecuniary damages action brought against the applicant by a state-owned military academy, from which the applicant had been dismissed 09/04/2013   Naberezhnyye Chelny Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic 15/08/2013   Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 1,500     58166/14 02/08/2014 Aladdin Mamed Ogly Mamedov 06/07/1966 Khakimova Patimat Magomedovna Moscow civil claim against the applicant seeking court injunction to withdraw horses from public area of a gardening association of which the applicant is a member 01/03/2013   Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow 04/12/2013   Moscow City Court 1,500     39327/16 22/06/2016 Sergey Igorevich Puklich 22/04/1973     Dispute for reinstatement in the post and compensation of damages 28/05/2015   Sovetskiy district court of Ryazan 05/08/2015   Ryazan regional court 1,500     62111/16 18/10/2016 Diana Aleksandrovna Yalbayeva 15/07/1983     Dispute to recover legal expenses from lawyer for his failure to provide legal services.   22/01/2015   Central District Court of Barnaul of the Altai Region 06/05/2015   Altai Regional Court 1,500     5751/17 05/01/2017 Svetlana Nikolayevna Zaytseva 20/02/1963     Civil proceedings about validity of the contract for selling the applicant’s room. 13/10/2015   Gubkinskiy District Court 28/12/2015   Court of Yamalo-Nenetskiy autonomous district 1,500     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.