CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 janvier 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s4070A5A6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } FIRST SECTION Application no. 34866/10 Nikolay Grigoryevich LIPILIN against Russia lodged on 25 May 2010   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Nikolay Grigoryevich Lipilin, is a Russian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Novonikolayevskiy, Volgograd region. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant brought proceedings against his former employer, a private company, challenging his dismissal and claiming damages. On 2 July 2009 Novonikolayevskiy District Court partially granted the applicant’s claims. The respondent and the public prosecutor appealed against the judgment. On 20 August 2009 Volgograd Regional Court examined the case on appeal, quashed the judgment and ordered a fresh examination of the case by the District Court. On 25 September 2009 the District Court rejected the applicant’s claims on the ground of his failure to lodge his application within the statutory limitation period of one month. The applicant appealed against the judgment. On 5 November 2009 the Regional Court examined the case on appeal at a public hearing, rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the findings of the first-instance court. It appears that neither the applicant nor the respondent were present at the hearing. According to the applicant, he had not been notified of the hearing, hence had not been present. He submits that he received a copy of the Volgograd Regional Court’s judgment certified by the registry of the Novonikolayevskiy District Court on 27   November 2009. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Novonikolayevskiy District Court’s judgment of 25 September 2009 was not pronounced publicly and that he was deprived of his right to participate in the appeal hearing as a result of the authorities’ failure to inform him of that hearing. 2.     In his letter of 25 October 2010 the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the prosecutor’s participation in his proceedings by lodging the appeal against the judgment of 2 July 2009 was in breach of the principle of equality of arms. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Were the Novonikolayevskiy District Court’s judgment of 25   September 2009 and the Volgograd Regional Court’s judgment of 5   November 2009 pronounced publicly, as required by that provision of the Convention? In particular, was the reading out of the judgments at the hearings limited to the operative part ( резолютивная часть ), and, if so, were the reasoned judgments, which were prepared after the hearings, made public by any other means (see Ryakib Biryukov v. Russia , no. 14810/02, ECHR 2008)?   2.     Was the applicant notified of the appeal hearing before the Volgograd Regional Court on 5 November 2009 in such a way as to afford him an opportunity to attend it? If not, was his right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 respected?   3.     Was/were the representative(s) of the respondent present at the hearing before the Volgograd Regional Court and did such representative(s) make submissions to the court? If so, has there been an infringement of the principle of equality of arms and the applicant’ s right to an adversarial procedure enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   4.     Has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article   35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, given the applicant’s absence at the hearing before the Volgograd Regional Court on 5 November 2009, were the domestic courts obliged to serve the Regional Court’s judgment of that day on the applicant? If so, when was the judgment sent to the applicant? Otherwise, when and where was the judgment available for the applicant?   5.     The Government are requested to submit the following documents: (a)     the court records of the hearings ( протоколы судебных заседаний ) before the Novonikolayevskiy District Court on 25 September 2009 and the Volgograd Regional Court on 5 November 2009; (b)     the operative parts ( резолютивная часть ) of the judgments, if the reasoned judgments were prepared after the hearings; and (c)     the notification of the hearing of 5 November 2009 before the Volgograd Regional Court served on the applicant and documents confirming the applicant’s receipt thereof. (d)     documents (if any) confirming that the Volgograd Regional Court’s judgment of 5 November 2009 was served on the applicant.