THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SHEPELEV AND BUKIN v. RUSSIA

( Applications nos. 56859/13 and 15646/17 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

21 February 2019

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Shepelev and Bukin v. Russia ,

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková , President, Dmitry Dedov , Jolien Schukking , judges, and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 31 January 2019 ,

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. Notice of the applications was given to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

THE FACTS

3. The list of applicant s and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicant s 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. THE GOVERNMENT ’ S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT AN APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

6. The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in application no. 15646/17 which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government ’ s request to strike the application out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003 ‑ VI, and Igranov and Others v. Russia , nos. 42399/13 and 8 others, §§ 25-27, 20 March 2018).

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

7. The applicant s 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:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ... ”

8. 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).

9. The applicant s alleged that they had not received the summonses and/or were not informed in due time of the date and place of hearing s in their case s . 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 applicant s , as well as the domestic courts ’ failure to assess the necessity to adjourn hearings pending the applicant s ’ proper notification or to delve on the nature of their legal claims which could have rendered the applicant s ’ 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 ) .

10. In the leading case of Gankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 2430/06 and 3 others, 31 May 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

11. Having examined all the material submitted to it and lacking any evidence of proper notification of the applicant s , 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 applicant s ’ case s 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 applicant s of the opportunity to present their case s effectively and fell short of their obligation to respect the principle of fair trial enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention.

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

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13. 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.”

14. 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.

15. 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. Rejects the Government ’ s request to strike application no. 15646/17 out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declaration which they submitted;

3. Declares the applications admissible;

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

5. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant s , 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 during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 February 2019 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková Acting D eputy 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 ’ s name

Date of birth

Nature of the dispute

Final decision

First-instance hearing date

Court

Appeal hearing date

Court

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros) [1]

56859/13

31/01/2013

Andrey Dmitriyevich Shepelev

03/09/1967

I. Proceedings concerning the refusal of the request for annual leave

II. Proceedings concerning non ‑ pecuniary damages for allegedly forged pay slip.

05/06/2012

Moscow Garrison Military Court

28/11/2011

Moscow Garrison Military Court

23/08/2012

Moscow District Military Court

02/08/2012

Moscow District Military Court.

2,600

15646/17

04/02/2017

Maksim Germanovich Bukin

30/06/1989

C ivil proceedings concerning alimony payments

19/05/2016

Justice of the Peace

15/08/2016

Leninskiy District Court of Krasnodar

2,000

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