European Court of Human Rights

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 2430/06
Vladislav Andreyevich GANKIN
against Russia
lodged on 10 November 2005

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vladislav Andreyevich Gankin, is a Russian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Volzhskiy. He was represented before the Court by Ms Y. Yegorova, a lawyer practising in Volzhskiy.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is a disabled person. Under the relevant legislation, he is entitled to a housing allowance.

In May 2006 the applicant brought an action against the municipal service provider, alleging that it had unlawfully charged the full cost of the services to him and that his allowance had not been taken into account. The applicant sought to recover the excessively paid amounts and to recalculate his future monthly payments.

On 3 October 2007 the Volzhskiy Town Court of the Volgograd Region rejected the applicant’s claims in full.

The applicant appealed to the Volgograd Regional Court.

On 29 November 2007 the Volgograd Regional Court upheld the judgment of the Town Court. It follows from the appeal judgment that the applicant was absent and that the Regional Court proceeded without checking whether he had been duly informed about the date and time of the hearing. A representative of the service provider was present at the hearing and made oral submissions.

On an unspecified date the applicant asked the Town Court to provide him with a copy of summons from his case file, but was refused.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was not duly notified of the appeal hearing and thus deprived of the opportunity to present his position before the appeal court. With reference to the same Article, he alleges that the domestic courts assessed his case erroneously.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Was the applicant notified of the hearing before the Volgograd Regional Court in such a way as to have an opportunity to attend?

2.  Taking into account that a representative of the other party was present at the hearing, whereas the applicant was neither present nor represented, was there a violation of his right to an adversarial trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?