CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 juin 2017

.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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 28 June 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 73193/12 Svitlana Vasylivna SYDORENKO against Ukraine lodged on 5 November 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the courts’ alleged failure to inform the applicant of the hearings before the courts of first and third (final) levels of jurisdiction. In particular, the applicant could not take part in the hearing before the first-instance court, which decided against her. While she took part in the hearing before the court of appeal, which decided in her favour, that decision was overturned by the cassation court sitting in camera on 12   September 2012, upon an appeal of the opposite party, which allegedly had not been communicated to the applicant. In its decision of 12 September 2012, the cassation court upheld the first-instance decision. QUESTION 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? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected in her case, in so far as it requires that each party be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed or evidence adduced by the other party, including the other party’s appeal?