Communicated on 26 June 2018
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 17342/13
Yevgeniy Yuryevich BERESTOV
against Russia
lodged on 16 February 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Yevgeniy Yuryevich Berestov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1986 and lives in Samara.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 17 January 2009 Ms S. was run over by a car driven by the applicant. Ms S. had a brain contusion and had to undergo medical treatment. However even after the treatment Ms S. was unable to fully comply with her working duties. In spring 2011 she initiated civil proceedings against the applicant and asked the court to award her compensation for damage caused due to reduced work capacity.
On 3 June 2011 the Volzhskiy District Court of the Samara Region (the “District Court”) sent a request to the Administration of the Kurumoch village of the Volzhskiy District Municipality asking to provide information about the applicant’s address.
On 22 June 2011 the Administration sent the letter to the District Court stating that they had tried to hand the summons to the applicant at the following address: 34-3, Lenin avenue, Kurumoch village, Volzskiy District, Samara Region. However it had transpired that the applicant did not live there anymore. The District Court received the letter on 29 June 2011.
On 24 June 2011 a staff member of the Administration called the District Court and informed it that the applicant had not been found at his place of residence and that according to his mother he lived at the following address: 20-38, Nekrasovskaya street, Samara.
On the same date the District Court allowed Ms S.’s claim in her presence and in the applicant’s absence. It held that the applicant had been duly informed of the hearing, had not provided any reasons for his absence and had not made any submissions.
On 17 August 2012 the bailiffs informed the applicant about the court’s decision of 24 June 2011.
On 21 August 2012 the applicant requested the Court to quash the decision of 24 June 2011 stating that he had not received any summons and that he could have refuted the plaintiff’s allegations with evidence which he had attached to his request.
The hearing was scheduled for 30 August 2012. It seems that the applicant did not receive any summons.
On 30 August 2012 the judge of the District Court considered in the applicant’s absence his request to review the decision of 21 June 2011. Ms S. and her representative attended the hearing. The judge held that there was no reason to quash the decision as the applicant had failed to provide valid justification for non-attendance or any evidence which could have had an impact on the outcome of the proceedings.
The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 30 August 2012.
On 10 October 2012 the Samara Regional Court dismissed his appeal.
B. Relevant domestic law
Domestic provisions governing notification of litigants in civil proceedings are described in Gankin and Others v. Russia, (nos. 2430/06, 1454/08, 11670/10 and 12938/12, § 16, 31 May 2016).
According to Article 233 of the Civil Procedure Code of Russia (the “Code”) if a defendant who has been notified about the date and place of a court hearing does not appear in court, and if he does not provide valid reasons for his failure to attend and does not request a waiver, the court may examine the case in absentia.
According to Article 237 of the Code a defendant may file with the court which examined the case in absentia, a request for quashing the default judgment within seven days from the day on which he or she received the judgment.
A default judgment may be also quashed by an appeal court within ten days upon expiry of the term for submitting a request for quashing a default judgment, and if such request has been submitted, within ten days from the date of the court’s decision to dismiss the request.
Article 241 of the Code provides that the court may issue a decision ordering to dismiss the request or to re-examine the case and submit it to the same or new judges.
According to Article 242 of the Code the default judgment may be quashed if the court establishes that the defendant was absent at the hearing for a valid reason which he could not timely bring to the court’s attention, and the defendant refers to the facts and submits evidence which may influence the outcome of proceedings.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he could not attend the hearing in the first-instance court and could not make submissions on the case because he had not been properly informed of the hearing.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Was there a fair hearing in the present case, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant notified of the hearing before the Volzhskiy District Court of the Samara Region held on 24 June 2011 in such a way as to have an opportunity to attend?
When the applicant tried to reopen the case under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code on proceedings in absentia, did he indicate a valid reason for non-attendance and did he provide evidence which could have influenced the outcome of the proceedings? What evidence did he provide?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy