CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 janvier 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center }     Communicated on 6 January 2014   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 56428/07 Shemsunur EMIROVA against Ukraine lodged on 15 December 2007 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Ms Shemsunur Emirova, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Novo-Pavlivka. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 1998 a V. instituted civil proceedings against the applicant’s husband seeking his eviction from the part of the house which V. claimed was his property. The applicant’s husband lodged a counter-claim requesting to have the sale agreement between V. and the original owner of the house quashed and to have the contested part of the house recognized as his property. On 26 March 2003 the Symferopil District Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea dismissed both claims. On 2 June 2004, in the course of V.’s appeal against the above judgment, the applicant’s husband died, and on   23   January   2006 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (hereinafter “the court of appeal”) admitted the applicant as her husband’s legal successor in the proceedings. On 6 March 2006 the court of appeal, having considered the case in the applicant’s absence, partly quashed the judgment of the first instance court, recognising V. as the owner of the house and ordered the eviction of the applicant’s husband. The remainder of the judgment of the first-instance court remained unchanged. On 4 July 2007 the applicant appealed in cassation and requested that the case remitted for re-consideration to the court of appeal. She stated, inter alia , that she had found out about the above judgment only on 8 February 2007, upon an inquiry she had made with the court, that the case had been considered in her absence and thus had been deprived of her right to be present at the court and to submit evidence and arguments in her favour. On 14 June 2007 the Supreme Court of Ukraine dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal having found no breach of material or procedural law. The court was silent as to the applicant’s arguments stated above. B.     Relevant domestic law The relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (in force as from 1 January 2005) read as follows: “Article 298 – Sending copies of the statement on appeal, appeal petition and attached documents to participants to the proceedings 1.   The court of appeal shall not later than the day after the delivery of the ruling on admittance of an appeal for examination send copies of the statement on appeal, the appeal itself and the attached documents to the participants to the proceedings and set time-limit for submission of their objections to the appeal. Article 338 - Grounds for quashing the decision and remittal of the case for a new examination 1. Judicial decision is subject to mandatory quashing and remittal for a new examination if: ... 3) the case was considered in the absence of any of the persons involved in the case, who had not been properly notified of the date and place of trial; [...]” COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that her right to a fair trial and to the equality of arms in particular was violated in that the court of appeal considered her case and delivered the judgment in her absence, without informing her of the date and time of the hearing, and that the Supreme Court was silent on this point raised in her cassation appeal.   QUESTIONs TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given her absence from the appeal hearing? Was the applicant informed of V.’s appeal against the judgment of the Symferopil District Court of 26   March 2003 and of the date and time of her case hearing by the court of appeal?