THIRD SECTION

CASE OF BODRENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application s no s . 31987/10 and 6 others -

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

14 June 2018

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

In the case of Bodrenko and Others 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 24 May 2018 ,

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 timeously 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 ...”

7. 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).

8. 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, nos. 2430/06 and 3 others , §§ 41-42, 31 May 2016 ) .

9. 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.

10. 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.

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

III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12. 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.”

13. 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.

14. 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 14 June 2018 , 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 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]

31987/10

21/05/2010

Andrey Ivanovich Bodrenko

17/11/1969

Contractual debt claim.

10/06/2010

Voroshilovskiy District Court of the Volgograd Region

02/09/2010

Volgograd Regional Court

1,500

33471/10

17/05/2010

Yuriy Mikhaylovich Gorbunov

12/04/1965

Shared property dispute.

08/05/2009

Dalnerechensk Town Court of the Primorye Region

18/11/2009

Primorye Regional Court

1,500

49584/10

04/08/2010

Almira Zigangirovna Murakayeva

15/09/1953

Contractual dispute.

11/11/2009

Justice of the Peace no. 3 of Sibay in the Republic of Bashkortostan

05/02/2010

Sibay Town Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan

1,500

50398/10

10/08/2010

Lyudmila Georgiyevna Fartushnaya

21/03/1943

Civil dispute concerning water supply fees debt.

16/12/2009

Justice of the Peace no. 40 of Dalnegorsk in the Primorye Region

29/06/2010

Dalnegorskiy District Court of the Primorye Region

1,500

51853/10

09/08/2010

Aleksey Yuryevich Starodubtsev

28/08/1970

Challenge against a disciplinary sanction (the applicant ’ s bar participation had been suspended) issued by a local bar association.

26/11/2009

Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Samara

10/02/2010

Samara Regional Court

1,500

53844/10

23/08/2010

Maksim Fedorovich Makarov

08/02/1984

Contractual debt dispute.

13/09/2007

Tsentralnyy District Court of Kaliningrad

24/02/2010

Kaliningrad Regional Court

1,500

62219/10

19/04/2010

Zinaida Timofeyevna Yushkina

06/05/1960

Employment dispute, reinstatement at work.

22/03/2010

Novonikolayevskiy District Court of the Volgograd Region

01/07/2010

Volgograd Regional Court

1,500

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