THIRD SECTION

CASE OF MIKRYUKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application no s . 11930/11 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 Mikryukov 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. THE GOVERNMENT ’ S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

6. The Government submitted unilateral declaration in respect of all of these cases 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 applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003 ‑ VI).

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

7. 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 ...”

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 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 ).

10. 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.

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 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.

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 the applications out of the list;

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 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 Engl ish, 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 non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant /household

(in euros) [1]

11930/11

02/02/2011

Yevgeniy Yevgenyevich Mikryukov

04/10/1989

social allowances dispute

30/06/2010

Kiriovskiy District Court of

Rostov- na - Donu

16/08/2010

Rostov Regional Court

1,500

21081/11

14/03/2011

Pavel Borisovich Rapoport

25/09/1943

civil actions against court bailiffs - compensation for undue enforcement of another court ruling

22/06/2011

Kalininskiy District Court of Novosibirsk

26/07/2011

Novosibirsk Regional Court

1,500

43178/11

10/06/2011

Household

Olga Pavlovna Starodubtseva

28/01/1961

Natalya Yuryevna Drozd

25/01/1982

Valeriy Nikitovich Starodubtsev

25/04/1956

private dispute concerning ownership of a land plot

27/12/2010

Efremovskiy District Court of

the Tula Region

17/03/2011

Tula Regional Court

1,500

73971/11

10/11/2011

Mariya Konstantinovna Khaydukova

07/04/1963

non-pecuniary damages for unlawful undertaking not to leave

11/08/2011

Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd

21/09/2011

Volgograd Regional Court

1,500

9159/12

22/01/2012

Irina Viktorovna Mezhentseva

26/03/1979

eviction dispute

26/04/2011

Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow

12/10/2011

Moscow City Court

1,500

21641/12

24/03/2012

Lyudmila Abbasovna Ponyagina

17/05/1947

non-pecuniary damages for failure to provide the applicant with a certificate entitling her to extra allowances pursuant to a court ruling of 2007

09/12/2011

Rubtsovsk Town Court of

the Altay Region

22/02/2012

Altay Regional Court

1,500

23796/12

29/03/2012

Alla Vladimirovna Sedova

19/01/1960

shared property dispute

11/05/2011

Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow

30/09/2011

Moscow City Court

1,500

24614/12

02/04/2012

Vladislav Rifkatovich Fassakhov

25/02/1971

non-pecuniary damages for illegal refusal to employ the applicant

02/02/2012

Vasileostrovskiy District Court of Saint-Petersburg

16/05/2012

Saint-Petersburg City Court

1,500

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