FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF BILA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

( Application s no s . 36245/12 and 10 others -

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

20 December 2018

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

In the case of Bila and Others v. Ukraine ,

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

Síofra O ’ Leary, President, Mārtiņš Mits , Lado Chanturia, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt , Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 29 November 2018 ,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine 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 Ukrainian 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 applicant s complained they were deprived of an opportunity to comment on the appeal s lodged by the defendants in their case s . Some applicants also raised another complaint under Article 6 of the Convention .

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 LOCUS STANDI OF MS GALYNA GRYGORIVNA TOVSTOKO R

6. As concerns the complaints raised by the applicant in application no. 17387/14 , the Court notes that he died on 11 June 2015, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant ’ s wife, Ms Galyna Grygorivna Tovstoko r , has requested to pursue the application on her husband ’ s behalf. As the request is in line with its case-law, the Court sees no reason to refuse it (see, among other authorities, Benyaminson v. Ukraine , n o. 31585/02, § 83, 26 July 2007; Petr Korolev v. Russia , no. 38112/ 04, §§ 43-45, 21 October 2010; Sergey Denisov and Others v. Russia , nos. 1985/05 and 4 others, §§ 73-75, 19 April 2016; and Horváthová v. Slovakia , no. 74456/01, §§ 25-27, 17 May 2005). However, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the present text.

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

7. The applicant s complained that the principle of equality of arms had been breached on account of the domestic courts ’ failure to serve appeals on them or otherwise inform them of the appeals lodged in their cases. 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 ...”

8. The Court reiterates that the general concept of a fair trial, encompassing the fundamental principle that proceedings should be adversarial (see Ruiz- Mateos v. Spain , 23 June 1993, § 63, Series A no. 262), requires that the person against whom proceedings have been initiated should be informed of this fact (see Dilipak and Karakaya v. Turkey , nos. 7942/05 and 24838/05, § 77, 4 March 2014). The principle of equality of arms requires that each party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case under conditions that do not place him or her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his or her opponent (see Avotiņš v. Latvia [GC], no. 17502/07, § 119, ECHR 2016, and Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands , 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274). Each party must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed or evidence adduced by the other party, including the other party ’ s appeal. What is at stake is the litigants ’ confidence in the workings of justice, which is based on, inter alia , the knowledge that they have had the opportunity to express their views on every document in the file (see Beer v. Austria , no. 30428/96, §§ 17 ‑ 18, 6 February 2001).

9. It may, therefore, be incumbent on the domestic courts to ascertain that their summonses or other documents have reached the parties sufficiently in advance and, where appropriate, record their findings in the text of the judgment (see Gankin and Others v. Russia , nos. 2430/06 et al, § 36, 31 May 2016). If court documents are not duly served on a litigant, then he or she might be prevented from defending him or herself in the proceedings (see Zavodnik v. Slovenia , no. 53723/13, § 70, 21 May 2015, with further references).

10. In the leading case of Lazarenko and Others v. Ukraine, (nos. 70329/12 and 5 others, 27 June 2017), 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 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 appeal s lodged in the applicant s ’ case s without attempting to ascertain whether they were served on the applicant s or whether the applicant s were informed of the appeal s by any other means , the domestic courts deprived the applicant s of the opportunity to comment on the appeal s lodged in their case s and fell short of their obligation to respect the principle of equality of arms 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

13. The applicants in applications nos. 15850/13, 24909/13 and 17387/14 submitted another complaint under Article 6 of the Convention which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court on the principle of legal certainty (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Ustimenko v. Ukraine (no. 2053/13, §§ 48-54, 29 October 2015) and Ponomaryov v. Ukraine (no. 3236/03, §§ 40-42, 43 and 47, 3 April 2008) .

V. 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. Decides that Ms Tovstoko r , the wife of the applicant in application no. 17387/14, has locus standi in the proceedings;

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 that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the other complaint raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

6. 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 20 December 2018 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Síofra O ’ Leary

Acting D eputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

( lack of opportunity to comment on the appeal )

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Date of birth

Representative ’ s name and location

Date of the First instance court decision

Date of the Court of appeal decision

Other complaints under well-established case-law

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]

36245/12

01/06/2012

Antonina Yakymivna Bila

04/04/1951

29/06/2011

Samarskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk

01/03/2012

Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal

500

15850/13

14/02/2013

Petro Yegorovych Gavrylov

09/08/1938

31/03/2009

Oleksandriya Local Court of Kirovograd Region

26/01/2012

Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal

Art. 6 (1) - breach of the principle of legal certainty:

The judgment of the Oleksandriya Local Court of Kirovohrad Region of 31/03/2009, final and enforceable as of 19/06/2009, was quashed by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 26/01/2012 on the basis of the defendant ’ s appeal lodged outside the established time limits.

650

24909/13

03/04/2013

Lidiya Pavlivna Kamenna

20/10/1937

22/02/2011

Babushkinskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk

01/10/2012

Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal

Art. 6 (1) - breach of the principle of legal certainty:

On 01/10/2012 the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal quashed the final judgment of the Babushkinskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk of 22/02/2011 under which the applicant ’ s social benefits were recalculated. The applicant learned about the judgment of the court of appeal in February 2013 from the letter of the Pension Fund informing her about the forthcoming recalculation of her pension.

650

42389/13

20/06/2013

Valentyna Grygorivna Sharyk

20/01/1955

24/06/2011

Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rih

06/12/2012

Dnipropetrovskyy Administrative Court of Appeal

500

50700/13

02/08/2013

Fedir Ivanovych Nimyy

24/05/1949

27/05/2011

Zhovtnevyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk

25/03/2013

Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal

500

68994/13

25/10/2013

Lyudmyla Anatoliyivna Nestychenko

16/03/1956

30/12/2010

Desnyanskyy District Court of Chernihiv

27/03/2012

Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal

500

17387/14

18/02/2014

Mykola Ivanovych Tovstokor

21/05/1953

The applicant died on 11/06/2015. His wife, Galyna Grygorivna Tovstoko r , has the quality of heir.

Nataliya Vitaliyivna Gubska

Zaporizhzhya

29/11/2010

Khortytskyy District Court of Zaporizhzhya

15/10/2013

Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal

Art. 6 (1) - breach of the principle of legal certainty:

The judgment of the Khortytskyy District Court of Zaporizhzhya of 29/11/2010, final and enforceable as of 10/12/2010, was quashed by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 15/10/2013 on the basis of the defendant ’ s appeal lodged outside of the established time limits.

650

29138/14

03/04/2014

Lyubov Volodymyrivna Semernya

26/12/1947

24/05/2011

Saksahanskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rih

18/09/2013

Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal

500

58263/14

16/08/2014

Larysa Stanislavivna Bulka

26/01/1954

12/04/2011

Saksahanskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rih

30/04/2013

Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal

500

32249/15

26/06/2015

Lyubov Petrivna Samsonik

13/10/1951

04/03/2011

Volodymyr- Volynskyy Town Court of Volyn Region

28/02/2013

Lviv Administrative Court of Appeal

500

50232/17

30/06/2017

Vitaliy Petrovych Zubko

04/08/1963

06/09/2011

Brovary Local Court of Kyiv Region

11/10/2012

Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal

500[1] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.