CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 21 février 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s50B7D056 { width:182.94pt; 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 } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF SHEPELEV AND BUKIN v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 56859/13 and 15646/17 )                             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   21 February 2019       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Shepelev and Bukin v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 31 January 2019, 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.     Notice of the applications was given 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 AN APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in application no. 15646/17 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 application out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003‑VI, and Igranov and Others v. Russia , nos. 42399/13 and 8 others, §§   25-27, 20 March 2018). III.     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: “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, nos. 2430/06 and   3 others, 31 May 2016, 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. IV.     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 application no. 15646/17 out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declaration which they submitted;   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 during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 February 2019, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková 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’s name Date of birth Nature of the dispute Final decision First-instance hearing date Court Appeal hearing date Court Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     56859/13 31/01/2013 Andrey Dmitriyevich Shepelev 03/09/1967 I.     Proceedings concerning the refusal of the request for annual leave       II.   Proceedings concerning non ‑ pecuniary damages for allegedly forged pay slip.     05/06/2012   Moscow Garrison Military Court     28/11/2011   Moscow Garrison Military Court 23/08/2012   Moscow District Military Court     02/08/2012   Moscow District Military Court. 2,600     15646/17 04/02/2017 Maksim Germanovich Bukin 30/06/1989 Civil proceedings concerning alimony payments 19/05/2016   Justice of the Peace 15/08/2016   Leninskiy District Court of Krasnodar 2,000     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.