Communicated on 6 February 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 5918/13
Aleksandr Anatolyevich KOVALEV against Russia
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
The applicants are Russian nationals. The applicants’ details appear in the Appendix.
A. The circumstances of the cases
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. Application no. 5918/13 lodged by Mr Kovalev
On 27 October 2011 the applicant purchased a plot of land and applied to the local office of the Federal Service of State Registry (“Registry”) seeking to register his title to that plot.
On 23 December 2011 the Registry refused to register the applicant’s title.
On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against the Registry challenging the refusal.
On 23 January 2012 the Nelidovskiy Town Court granted the applicant’s claim and ordered the Registry to register the applicant’s title to the plot of land.
On 19 April 2012 the Tverskoy Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal.
On 10 May 2012 the Registry issued the applicant with a certificate of ownership.
On 5 July 2012 the Registry lodged a cassation appeal with the Presidium of the Tverskoy Regional Court.
On 27 August 2012 the Presidium of the Tverskoy Regional Court quashed the lower courts’ judgments and dismissed the applicant’s claim. According to the applicant, he was not summoned to that hearing.
On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a second cassation appeal with the federal Supreme Court. It is unclear whether in his cassation appeal the applicant complained about the failure to summon him to the hearing.
On 25 October 2012 a single judge of the Supreme Court of Russia refused to transfer the applicant’s appeal for consideration on the merits on the ground that the first instance court duly considered evidence of the case and there is no indication of incorrect application of material law.
It appears that the registration of the applicant’s title to the plot of land is still in force and the applicant pays taxes on it.
2. Applications nos. 25181/14 and 25324/14 lodged by Ms Lyu and Ms Kim respectively
On 20 September 2010 Ms Lyu’s (“the first applicant”) mother, Ms Kim (“the second applicant”) purchased a plot of land and an unfinished house.
On 4 July 2011 the second applicant was issued with a certificate of ownership of the house.
On 4 October 2012 the second applicant transferred that property to the first applicant by the deed of gift.
On an unspecified date the first applicant registered her title to the property.
On an unspecified date the second applicant’s husband lodged an application with the first instance court against the applicants seeking to obtain ownership over the house and a plot of land. The second applicant lodged a counterclaim seeking to confirm her title to the property.
On 15 May 2013 the Anapa Town Court found for the second applicant’s husband and dismissed the counterclaim.
On 2 July 2013 the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed that judgment on appeal and found for the applicants.
On an unspecified date the second applicant’s husband lodged a cassation appeal.
On 4 July 2013 the applicants were summoned to a hearing before the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court.
On 9 July 2013 they requested the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court to adjourn the hearing on the ground that they had received neither a copy of the cassation appeal nor a copy of the decision of the single judge transferring the cassation appeal to the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court for consideration on the merits. According to the applicants, they received no response to that request.
On 10 July 2013 the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the judgment of 2 July 2013 and upheld that of 15 May 2013.
On 19 August 2013 the applicants lodged a cassation appeal with the federal Supreme Court arguing inter alia that the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court failed to adjourn the hearing, thus depriving them of an opportunity to respond to the plaintiff’s appeal.
On 17 January 2014 a single judge of the Supreme Court of Russia refused to transfer the applicants’ appeal for consideration on the merits without addressing the applicants’ complaint regarding the regional cassation court’s failure to adjourn the hearing.
3. Application no. 61417/15 lodged by Mr Li
The applicant was the head of the Laboratory of Judicial Experts of the Tomsk Region.
On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against the Ministry of Finance seeking to recover 10,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in non-pecuniary damage due to unlawful prosecution.
On 31 May 2013 the Kirov District Court granted the applicant’s claim in part and awarded him RUB 600,000. Both parties appealed against the judgment.
On 2 July 2014 the Tomsk Regional Court dismissed the respondent’s appeal and granted the applicant’s appeal. The court quashed the judgment of 31 May 2013 and granted the applicant’s claim in full, i.e. RUB 10,000,000.
On 28 October 2013 the applicant received the writ of execution.
On 2 October 2014 the judgment was fully executed and the applicant received RUB 10,000,000.
It appears that the applicant changed his address during the civil proceedings and informed the courts accordingly.
In May 2015 the representative of the Ministry of Finance informed the applicant that the judgment of 2 July 2014 had been quashed on 21 April 2015 by the Supreme Court of Russia.
In May and on 18 September 2015 the applicant applied to the Supreme Court of Russia seeking to obtain copies of the cassation appeal and of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Russia.
On 2 October 2015 the applicant lodged a supervisory review application against the judgment of 21 April 2015.
On 16 October 2015 the applicant’s supervisory review application was rejected as being lodged out of time.
On 5 October 2015 the Kirov District Court ordered the applicant to reimburse the sums he received under the judgment of 2 July 2013. It appears that the decision of 5 October 2015 remained unenforced.
On 15 October 2015 the applicant received all claimed documents. It resulted from those documents that the summonses relating to the cassation examination of the applicant’s case by the federal Supreme Court had been sent to his old address.
On 11 December 2015 the Kirov District Court granted the applicant’s claim and extended the time limit for lodging a supervisory review application.
On 25 February 2016 the applicant lodged a supervisory review application with the Supreme Court of Russia arguing that the regional cassation court did not summon him to a hearing.
It appears that on 29 February 2016 a single judge of the Supreme Court of Russia refused to transfer the applicant’s supervisory review application for consideration on the merits. It is unclear whether the single judge addressed the applicant’s complaint regarding the regional cassation court’s failure to summon him to a hearing.
4. Application no. 5261/16 lodged by Ms Sechina
On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against a mining company, her former employer, seeking compensation for damage resulting from the job-related injuries.
On 16 July 2014 the Starooskolskiy Town Court found for the applicant and awarded her RUB 213,021.
On 21 October 2014 the Belgorod Regional Court quashed that judgment on appeal and reduced the amount of compensation to RUB 200,606.7.
On 27 April 2015 the mining company lodged a cassation appeal.
On 2 July 2015 the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court quashed the judgment of 21 October 2014 and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It appears that neither the applicant nor her representative were duly summoned to the cassation hearing.
On 20 August 2015 the Belgorod Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim.
In parallel, the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court of Russia against the judgment of 2 July 2015. She complained that she did not receive a copy of the cassation appeal and a copy of the decision of the single judge transferring the cassation appeal to the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court. She further complained that the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court had not summoned her to a hearing.
On 30 September 2015 a single judge of the Supreme Court of Russia refused to transfer the applicant’s appeal for consideration on the merits without addressing the applicant’s complaint regarding the regional cassation court’s failure to summon her to the hearing, to send her copies of the cassation appeal and the single judge’s decision.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice governing the cassation review of judicial decisions since 1 January 2012 is summed up in the Court’s decision in the case of Abramyan and Others v. Russia (nos. 38951/13 and 59611/13, §§ 32-41 and 49-53, 12 May 2015).
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, Mr Kovalev, Mr Li and Ms Sechina complained that the cassation courts at regional or federal level failed to duly summon them to the hearings and thus deprived them of an opportunity to argue their cases against the arguments of the respondents.
Relying on the same Article, Ms Lyu and Ms Kim complained that by refusing to adjourn the hearing and by considering the defendant’s cassation appeal in their absence the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court infringed their right to a court.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was there a violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention on account of the cassation courts’ alleged failure to inform them of the hearing and to give them an adequate possibility of responding to another party’s cassation appeal in adversarial proceedings?
2. Did the applicants have the opportunity to study and comment on the arguments and evidence submitted by the respondents before the Presidium of Regional courts or the federal Supreme Court? If not, was there a breach of the applicants’ right to adversarial proceedings and equality of arms enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
Date of birth
Place of residence
Nationality
Represented by
Complaints
5918/13
27/11/2012
Aleksandr Anatolyevich KOVALEV
28/10/1954
Nelidovo
Russian
Art.6
25181/14
12/03/2014
Irina Aleksandrovna LYU
20/10/1978
Anapa
Russian
Art.6
25324/14
12/03/2014
Olga Viktorovna KIM
26/11/1958
Ussuriysk
Russian
Art.6
61417/15
04/12/2015
Vitaliy Nikolayevich LI
16/10/1953
Tomsk
Russian
Tatyana Vladimirovna TRUBNIKOVA
Art.6
5261/16
14/01/2016
Nadezhda Sergeyevna SECHINA
27/09/1971
Staryy Oskol
Russian
Dmitriy Alekseyevich SHIRMANOV
Art.6
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy