Information Note on the Court’s case-law 196
May 2016
Gankin and Others v. Russia - 2430/06, 1454/08, 11670/10 et al.
Judgment 31.5.2016 [Section III]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Failure by appellate courts to verify whether absent parties had received notification of hearing: violation
Facts – All four applicants were parties to civil proceedings which went to appeal. In each case, the appellate court dismissed the applicants’ claims in their absence, without examining whether they had in fact received notification of the hearing. In the Convention proceedings, the applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a violation of their right to a fair hearing.
Law – Article 6 § 1: The rules of Russian civil procedure required the domestic courts to hold an oral hearing in all categories of cases. Whenever an oral hearing was to be held, the parties had the right to attend and make oral submissions, to choose another way of participating in the proceedings (for example by appointing a representative) or to ask for an adjournment. For the effective exercise of those rights, the parties had to be informed of the date and place of the hearing sufficiently in advance to have adequate time to make arrangements.
The Court stated that national courts were required to identify any defect in notification prior to embarking on the merits of the case. The analysis the Court expected to find in domestic decisions had to go beyond a reference to a dispatch of judicial summons and make the most of the available evidence in order to ascertain whether an absent party had in fact been informed of the hearing sufficiently in advance. A domestic court’s failure to ascertain whether an absent party had received the summons in due time and, if he had not, whether the hearing should be adjourned, was in itself incompatible with genuine respect for the principle of a fair hearing and could lead the Court to finding a violation of Article 6 § 1.
The Russian Code of Civil Procedure, as worded at the material time, provided for oral hearings before appellate courts and that the scope of review by such courts was not limited to matters of law but also extended to factual issues. The appellate courts were empowered to carry out a full review of the case and to consider additional evidence and arguments which had not been examined at first instance. In these circumstances, by proceeding to consider the merits of the appeals without attempting to ascertain whether the applicants had or should have been aware of the date and time of the hearings, the domestic courts had deprived them of the opportunity to present their cases effectively.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 1,500 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed. The Court noted that a finding of a violation was a ground for reopening civil proceedings under Article 392 §§ 2(2) and 4(4) of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy