FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18015/19
Volodymyr Adolfovych GROS
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18 February 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Ivana Jelić, President,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 March 2019,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Volodymyr Adolfovych Gros, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Mykolayiv region.
The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the domestic courts’ failure to inform him of hearings was communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”).
On 3 July 2017 the Lviv Administrative Court of Appeal partly allowed the applicant’s claims in a dispute initiated by him against the Lviv Regional Department of the State Architectural and Construction Inspection.
On 24 July 2017 the defendant appealed in cassation before the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine, which opened the proceedings on 4 September 2017. No copies of the above ruling and the defendant’s appeal were sent to the applicant.
On 26 March 2018, the Lviv Administrative Court of Appeal, in its reply to the applicant’s inquiry as to another set of proceedings, informed him that the proceedings in the present dispute were pending before the Supreme Court.
On 26 September 2018 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of the appellate court and upheld the first-instance court’s decision. The applicant learned about this decision on 6 October 2018.
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
The applicant complained that his right to a fair hearing had been breached on account of the domestic courts’ failure to properly and timely notify him of hearings before the court of cassation in the civil proceedings to which he was party. He 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 ...”
The Government submitted that the applicant had been informed about his case being examined by the court of cassation on 26 March 2018, in the appellate court’s reply to his request for an update in a different set of proceedings. They maintained that, in view of this, the applicant could have lodged his comments in this respect.
The applicant confirmed the above fact but maintained that he was deprived of the possibility to comment on the defendant’s appeal, as it had not been sent to him.
The Court observes that in the present case the domestic courts had not sent the copy of the appeal in cassation to the applicant, which would normally amount to a breach of the principle of equality of arms (see, mutatis mutandis, Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, § 88, ECHR 2005‑VIII (extracts)). However, in the present case it has been demonstrated, and confirmed by both parties, that on 26 March 2018 the applicant had been informed of the pending proceedings before the court of cassation (see, a contrario, Lazarenko and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 70329/12 and 5 others, §§ 38-43, 27 June 2017).
It follows that the applicant was aware of the proceedings six months before the final decision was rendered. Despite this, the applicant did not attempt to make any inquiries as to the status of the proceedings, or to request any information and documents in this regard.
The Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the interested party to display special diligence in the defence of their interests and to take the necessary steps to apprise themself of the developments in the proceedings (see, among other authorities, Teuschler v. Germany (dec.), no. 47636/99, 4 October 2001; Sukhorubchenko v. Russia, no. 69315/01, § 48, 10 February 2005; and Gurzhyy v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 326/03, 1 April 2008).
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the applicant failed to display the requisite diligence in the proceedings to which he was a party. Therefore, the Court considers that the respondent Government cannot be held liable for depriving the applicant of an opportunity to comment on the cassation appeal lodged in his case.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 March 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Liv TigerstedtIvana Jelić
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy