THIRD SECTION
CASE OF LITVINOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 1850/10 and 8 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 November 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Litvinova and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 November 2017,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia 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. The applications were communicated to the Russian 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 of the domestic courts’ failure to ensure their participation in hearings in the civil proceedings to which they were parties.
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 GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT SOME APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The Government submitted unilateral declaration in respect of some of these cases which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003‑VI).
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
7. The applicants complained that their right to a fair hearing had been breached on account of the domestic courts’ failure to properly and timely notify them of hearings in the civil proceedings to which they were parties. 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 observes that the general principles regarding the right to present one’s case effectively before the court and to enjoy equality of arms with the opposing side, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, §§ 59-60, ECHR 2005-II).
9. The applicants alleged that they had not received the summonses and/or were not informed in due time of the date and place of hearings in their cases. The Court reiterates that domestic courts must make reasonable efforts to summon the parties to a hearing (see Kolegovy v. Russia, no. 15226/05, § 42, 1 March 2012, and Babunidze v. Russia (dec.), no. 3040/03, 15 May 2007). Litigants must also take appropriate measures to ensure effective receipt of correspondence the domestic courts may send them (see Perihan and Mezopotamya Basın Yayın A.Ş. v. Turkey, no. 21377/03, § 38, 21 January 2014; Boyko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 17382/04, 23 October 2007; and Darnay v. Hungary, no. 36524/97, Commission decision of 16 April 1998). Moreover, the Court has noted that a lack or deficiency of reasons in domestic decisions as regards the proof of receipt of summonses by the applicants, as well as the domestic courts’ failure to assess the necessity to adjourn hearings pending the applicants’ proper notification or to delve on the nature of their legal claims which could have rendered the applicants’ presence unnecessary cannot be made up ex post facto in the Court proceedings, for it cannot take the place of the national courts which had the evidence before them (see Gankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 2430/06 and 3 others, §§ 41-42, 31 May 2016).
10. In the leading case of Gankin and Others v. Russia, cited above, 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 merits of the applicants’ cases without attempting to ascertain whether they had been or should have been at least aware of the date and time of the hearings, and, if they had not, whether the hearings should have been adjourned, the domestic courts deprived the applicants of the opportunity to present their cases effectively and fell short of their obligation to respect the principle of fair trial enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention.
12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. 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.”
14. 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.
15. 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. Rejects the Government’s request to strike some of the applications out of the list;
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
(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 30 November 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtLuis López Guerra
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(applicant’s absence from civil proceedings)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Representative name and location
Nature of the dispute
First-instance hearing date
Court
Appeal hearing date
Court
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant /household
(in euros)[1]
1850/10
16/12/2009
Nadezhda Vladimirovna Litvinova
09/08/1958
civil proceedings for recovery of an indebtedness, interest and court fees
06/04/2009
Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk City Court
16/06/2009
Sakhalin Regional Court
1,500
7300/12
16/01/2012
Household
Roman Sergeyevich Zholudev
27/06/1959
Roman Sergeyevich Zholudev
10/09/1989
Nechin Vasiliy Vasilyevich
Dmitrov
recognition of property title over a flat
08/06/2011
Dmitrov Town Court of the Moscow Region
28/07/2011
Moscow Regional Court
1,500
18261/13
23/01/2013
Tatyana Vitalyevna Perepelitsyna
26/08/1957
Chernyy Sergey Aleksandrovich
Armavir
reinstatement at work
16/02/2012
Armavir Town Court
24/04/2012
Krasnodar Regional Court
1,500
50086/13
12/07/2013
Valentina Viktorovna Rybas
27/11/1949
Boyev Dmitriy Alekseyevich
Norilsk
royalties dispute
10/09/2012
Norilsk (Talnakh district) Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region
14/01/2013
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
1,500
16778/14
07/02/2014
Yevgeniy Sergeyevich Mikhleyev
17/05/1990
Gazizova Yelena Sergeyevna
Naberezhnyye Chelny
pecuniary damages action brought against the applicant by a state-owned military academy, from which the applicant had been dismissed
09/04/2013
Naberezhnyye Chelny Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic
15/08/2013
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
1,500
58166/14
02/08/2014
Aladdin Mamed Ogly Mamedov
06/07/1966
Khakimova Patimat Magomedovna
Moscow
civil claim against the applicant seeking court injunction to withdraw horses from public area of a gardening association of which the applicant is a member
01/03/2013
Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow
04/12/2013
Moscow City Court
1,500
39327/16
22/06/2016
Sergey Igorevich Puklich
22/04/1973
Dispute for reinstatement in the post and compensation of damages
28/05/2015
Sovetskiy district court of Ryazan
05/08/2015
Ryazan regional court
1,500
62111/16
18/10/2016
Diana Aleksandrovna Yalbayeva
15/07/1983
Dispute to recover legal expenses from lawyer for his failure to provide legal services.
22/01/2015
Central District Court of Barnaul of the Altai Region
06/05/2015
Altai Regional Court
1,500
5751/17
05/01/2017
Svetlana Nikolayevna Zaytseva
20/02/1963
Civil proceedings about validity of the contract for selling the applicant’s room.
13/10/2015
Gubkinskiy District Court
28/12/2015
Court of Yamalo-Nenetskiy autonomous district
1,500
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy