European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

CASE OF LADYUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 636/10 and 7 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 Ladyuk 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.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  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 ...”

7.  The Government asked the Court to strike out case no. 636/10, given that the supervisory review instance court quashed a final judgment in the applicant’s case on 19 February 2010. They insisted that she had therefore lost her victim status. From the case documents submitted by the Government it is clear that in fresh proceedings in cassation instance of 24 March 2010 she was again absent from the hearing and there is no indication whether the applicant had been properly notified of that hearing.

8.  In the light of the material in the case file and having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the fresh set of domestic proceedings did not amount to appropriate redress for the alleged violation suffered. The applicant therefore did not lose her status as a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and the Government’s objection in this regard must therefore be rejected.

9.  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).

10.  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).

11.  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.

12.  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.

13.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14.  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.”

15.  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.

16.  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.  Declares the applications admissible;

 

3.  Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unfairness of the civil proceedings;

 

4.  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 Tigerstedt                                                             Luis López Guerra

Acting Deputy Registrar                                                            President

 




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	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 (in euros)[1]
1.	636/10 01/12/2009	Viktoriya Yuryevna Ladyuk 19/09/1971	defamation proceedings	02/04/2009   Yeravninskiy District Court of the Republic of Buryatiya	01/07/2009   Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatiya	1,500
2.	32116/12 12/04/2012	Lyudmila Borisovna Musina 07/05/1959	pension arrears dispute	25/07/2011   Leninskiy District Court of Nizhniy Tagil	13/10/2011   Sverdlovsk Regional Court	1,500
3.	17581/13 05/02/2013	Rimma Rifatovna Nazipova 27/08/1982	contractual dispute	25/04/2012   Mirninskiy District Court of the Sakha-Yakutiya Republic	08/08/2012   Supreme Court of the Sakha-Yakutiya Republic	1,500
4.	28826/13 18/03/2013	Lidiya Mikhaylovna Karenkina 10/08/1938	land dispute between private parties	11/04/2012   Biyskiy District Court of the Altayskiy Region	19/09/2012   Altayskiy Regional Court	1,500
5.	32029/13 05/04/2013	Anton Alekseyevich Merkushev 28/01/1987	communal services dispute	28/11/2012   Gatchina Town Court of the Leningradskiy Region	21/02/2013   Leningradskiy Regional Court	1,500
6.	37126/13 05/11/2008	Lev Mustakimovich Azanbayev 15/12/1947	non-pecuniary damages for unlawful criminal prosecution	29/05/2008   Beloyarsk Town Court of the Khanty-Mansiysk - Yugra Region	19/08/2008   Khanty-Mansiysk - Yugra Regional Court	1,500
7.	45064/13 14/06/2013	Aleksandr Vladimirovich Barminskiy 12/01/1985	reinstatement at work and non-pecuniary damage for illegal dismissal	07/02/2013   Dubna Town Court of the Moscow Region	17/04/2013   Moscow Regional Court	1,500
8.	54123/13 23/07/2013	Yekaterina Vasilyevna Shlykova 10/03/1956	insurance dispute with employer	29/10/2012   Pravoberezhnyy District Court of Lipetsk	23/01/2013   Lipetsk Regional Court	1,500

 

 




---

[1].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.