CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 juillet 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 } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8FA62C20 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt }   Communicated on 6 July 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 1424/17 SOVET GREENPEACE against Russia lodged on 28 December 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, non-governmental organisation “Sovet Greenpeace”, is a Russian based organisation, registered in 2003 and practicing in Moscow. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 19 November 2014 the applicant brought civil proceedings for defamation against the “Smena” limited. On 11 June 2015 the Petrograd District Court of St Petersburg dismissed the applicant’s claims in full. On 12 November 2015 the St Petersburg City Court upheld this judgment on appeal. On 11 April 2016 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Presidium of the St Petersburg City Court. On 6   May 2016 a judge of the St Petersburg City Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal. According to the applicant it received the decision of 6 May 2016 only on 30 May 2016 that is after the six-month time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal with the federal Supreme Court had elapsed. On 31 May 2017 the applicant applied for extension of the time ‑ limits for lodging a second cassation appeal against the judgment of 12 November 2015. The applicant indicated that it could not comply with the time-limit for the second cassation appeal on account of the delay in receiving the decision of 6 May 2016. On 19 July 2017 the Petrograd District Court of St Petersburg rejected the applicant’s request on account of the lack of valid reasons adduced by the applicant for its non-compliance with the initial time-limits. The applicant appealed. On 9 September 2016 the St Petersburg City Court rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the findings of the Petrograd District Court of St Petersburg. The court in addition found that the applicant missed the time-limit for appeal because it used its right to lodge appeal unreasonably. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice governing the cassation review of judicial decisions after they become final in force as of 1   January 2012 is summed up in the Court’s decision in the case of Abramyan and   Others v.   Russia (nos.   38951/13 and 59611/13, §§   32-41 and   49 ‑ 53, 12   May 2015). COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about a violation of its right to access to a court, namely to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, a second cassation instance, on account of late receipt of the St Petersburg City Court’s decision in respect of its first cassation appeal and the domestic courts’ subsequent refusal to restore the time-limit for lodging a second cassation appeal. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was there a breach of the applicant’s “right of access to a court” as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, having regard to the fact that its second cassation appeal became time-barred due to the late receipt of the regional single judge’s decision in respect of its first cassation appeal (see Abramyan and Others, cited above, §§ 77 and 95)? In particular, were the applicants responsible for the delay? The Government is specifically invited to address the following questions:   -     is the time elapsed between the request for the case file and its receipt by a single judge examining the admissibility of a cassation appeal excluded from the time-limits provided by the Code of Civil Procedure for the adoption of this decision by a single judge? If so, is the same period of time accordingly excluded from the overall six-month time-limit provided for the appellants for lodging both cassation appeals?   -     should the time spent by a single judge at regional level be taken into account in the calculation of the overall six-month time-limit for lodging both cassation appeals?   -     are there any time-limits for the notification of this decision to the appellant party? Did the St Petersburg City Court comply with these time ‑ limits as regards the notification the regional single judge’s refusal to the applicant?   -     should a copy of the refusal of a regional single judge to accept a cassation appeal be appended to the second cassation appeal, failing which the latter shall be immediately returned to the appellant without any consideration?