FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF BILA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 36245/12 and 10 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20 December 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bila and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Síofra O’Leary, President,
Mārtiņš Mits,
Lado Chanturia, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 29 November 2018,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. Notice of the applications was given to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained they were deprived of an opportunity to comment on the appeals lodged by the defendants in their cases. Some applicants also raised another complaint under Article 6 of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. THE LOCUS STANDI OF MS GALYNA GRYGORIVNA TOVSTOKOR
6. As concerns the complaints raised by the applicant in application no. 17387/14, the Court notes that he died on 11 June 2015, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s wife, Ms Galyna Grygorivna Tovstokor, has requested to pursue the application on her husband’s behalf. As the request is in line with its case-law, the Court sees no reason to refuse it (see, among other authorities, Benyaminson v. Ukraine, no. 31585/02, § 83, 26 July 2007; Petr Korolev v. Russia, no. 38112/04, §§ 43-45, 21 October 2010; Sergey Denisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 1985/05 and 4 others, §§ 73-75, 19 April 2016; and Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, §§ 25-27, 17 May 2005). However, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the present text.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
7. The applicants complained that the principle of equality of arms had been breached on account of the domestic courts’ failure to serve appeals on them or otherwise inform them of the appeals lodged in their cases. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
8. The Court reiterates that the general concept of a fair trial, encompassing the fundamental principle that proceedings should be adversarial (see Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, 23 June 1993, § 63, Series A no. 262), requires that the person against whom proceedings have been initiated should be informed of this fact (see Dilipak and Karakaya v. Turkey, nos. 7942/05 and 24838/05, § 77, 4 March 2014). The principle of equality of arms requires that each party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case under conditions that do not place him or her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his or her opponent (see Avotiņš v. Latvia [GC], no. 17502/07, § 119, ECHR 2016, and Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274). Each party must 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. What is at stake is the litigants’ confidence in the workings of justice, which is based on, inter alia, the knowledge that they have had the opportunity to express their views on every document in the file (see Beer v. Austria, no. 30428/96, §§ 17‑18, 6 February 2001).
9. It may, therefore, be incumbent on the domestic courts to ascertain that their summonses or other documents have reached the parties sufficiently in advance and, where appropriate, record their findings in the text of the judgment (see Gankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 2430/06 et al, § 36, 31 May 2016). If court documents are not duly served on a litigant, then he or she might be prevented from defending him or herself in the proceedings (see Zavodnik v. Slovenia, no. 53723/13, § 70, 21 May 2015, with further references).
10. In the leading case of Lazarenko and Others v. Ukraine, (nos. 70329/12 and 5 others, 27 June 2017), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
11. Having examined all the material submitted to it and lacking any evidence of proper notification of the applicants, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court finds that by proceeding to consider the appeals lodged in the applicants’ cases without attempting to ascertain whether they were served on the applicants or whether the applicants were informed of the appeals by any other means, the domestic courts deprived the applicants of the opportunity to comment on the appeals lodged in their cases and fell short of their obligation to respect the principle of equality of arms enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention.
12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
13. The applicants in applications nos. 15850/13, 24909/13 and 17387/14 submitted another complaint under Article 6 of the Convention which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court on the principle of legal certainty (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Ustimenko v. Ukraine (no. 2053/13, §§ 48-54, 29 October 2015) and Ponomaryov v. Ukraine (no. 3236/03, §§ 40-42, 43 and 47, 3 April 2008).
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
16. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Decides that Ms Tovstokor, the wife of the applicant in application no. 17387/14, has locus standi in the proceedings;
3. Declares the applications admissible;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unfairness of the civil proceedings;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the other complaint raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
6. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 December 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtSíofra O’Leary
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(lack of opportunity to comment on the appeal)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Representative’s name and location
Date of the First instance court decision
Date of the Court of appeal decision
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
36245/12
01/06/2012
Antonina Yakymivna Bila
04/04/1951
29/06/2011
Samarskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk
01/03/2012
Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal
500
15850/13
14/02/2013
Petro Yegorovych Gavrylov
09/08/1938
31/03/2009
Oleksandriya Local Court of Kirovograd Region
26/01/2012
Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal
Art. 6 (1) - breach of the principle of legal certainty:
The judgment of the Oleksandriya Local Court of Kirovohrad Region of 31/03/2009, final and enforceable as of 19/06/2009, was quashed by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 26/01/2012 on the basis of the defendant’s appeal lodged outside the established time limits.
650
24909/13
03/04/2013
Lidiya Pavlivna Kamenna
20/10/1937
22/02/2011
Babushkinskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk
01/10/2012
Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal
Art. 6 (1) - breach of the principle of legal certainty:
On 01/10/2012 the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal quashed the final judgment of the Babushkinskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk of 22/02/2011 under which the applicant’s social benefits were recalculated. The applicant learned about the judgment of the court of appeal in February 2013 from the letter of the Pension Fund informing her about the forthcoming recalculation of her pension.
650
42389/13
20/06/2013
Valentyna Grygorivna Sharyk
20/01/1955
24/06/2011
Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rih
06/12/2012
Dnipropetrovskyy Administrative Court of Appeal
500
50700/13
02/08/2013
Fedir Ivanovych Nimyy
24/05/1949
27/05/2011
Zhovtnevyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk
25/03/2013
Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal
500
68994/13
25/10/2013
Lyudmyla Anatoliyivna Nestychenko
16/03/1956
30/12/2010
Desnyanskyy District Court of Chernihiv
27/03/2012
Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal
500
17387/14
18/02/2014
Mykola Ivanovych Tovstokor
21/05/1953
The applicant died on 11/06/2015. His wife, Galyna Grygorivna Tovstokor, has the quality of heir.
Nataliya Vitaliyivna Gubska
Zaporizhzhya
29/11/2010
Khortytskyy District Court of Zaporizhzhya
15/10/2013
Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal
Art. 6 (1) - breach of the principle of legal certainty:
The judgment of the Khortytskyy District Court of Zaporizhzhya of 29/11/2010, final and enforceable as of 10/12/2010, was quashed by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 15/10/2013 on the basis of the defendant’s appeal lodged outside of the established time limits.
650
29138/14
03/04/2014
Lyubov Volodymyrivna Semernya
26/12/1947
24/05/2011
Saksahanskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rih
18/09/2013
Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal
500
58263/14
16/08/2014
Larysa Stanislavivna Bulka
26/01/1954
12/04/2011
Saksahanskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rih
30/04/2013
Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal
500
32249/15
26/06/2015
Lyubov Petrivna Samsonik
13/10/1951
04/03/2011
Volodymyr-Volynskyy Town Court of Volyn Region
28/02/2013
Lviv Administrative Court of Appeal
500
50232/17
30/06/2017
Vitaliy Petrovych Zubko
04/08/1963
06/09/2011
Brovary Local Court of Kyiv Region
11/10/2012
Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal
500
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy