THIRD SECTION

CASE OF LITVINOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Applications nos. 1850/10 and 8 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 Litvinova 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 SOME APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

6. The Government submitted unilateral declaration in respect of some 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).

II. 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.

III. 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 some of 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 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

Representative name and location

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 /household

(in euros) [1]

1850/10

16/12/2009

Nadezhda Vladimirovna Litvinova

09/08/1958

civil proceedings for recovery of an indebtedness, interest and court fees

06/04/2009

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk City Court

16/06/2009

Sakhalin Regional Court

1,500

7300/12

16/01/2012

Household

Roman Sergeyevich Zholudev

27/06/1959

Roman Sergeyevich Zholudev

10/09/1989

Nechin Vasiliy Vasilyevich

Dmitrov

recognition of property title over a flat

08/06/2011

Dmitrov Town Court of the Moscow Region

28/07/2011

Moscow Regional Court

1,500

18261/13

23/01/2013

Tatyana Vitalyevna Perepelitsyna

26/08/1957

Chernyy Sergey Aleksandrovich

Armavir

reinstatement at work

16/02/2012

Armavir Town Court

24/04/2012

Krasnodar Regional Court

1,500

50086/13

12/07/2013

Valentina Viktorovna Rybas

27/11/1949

Boyev Dmitriy Alekseyevich

Norilsk

royalties dispute

10/09/2012

Norilsk ( Talnakh district) Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region

14/01/2013

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

1,500

16778/14

07/02/2014

Yevgeniy Sergeyevich Mikhleyev

17/05/1990

Gazizova Yelena Sergeyevna

Naberezhnyye Chelny

pecuniary damages action brought against the applicant by a state-owned military academy, from which the applicant had been dismissed

09/04/2013

Naberezhnyye Chelny Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic

15/08/2013

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

1,500

58166/14

02/08/2014

Aladdin Mamed Ogly Mamedov

06/07/1966

Khakimova Patimat Magomedovna

Moscow

civil claim against the applicant seeking court injunction to withdraw horses from public area of a gardening association of which the applicant is a member

01/03/2013

Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow

04/12/2013

Moscow City Court

1,500

39327/16

22/06/2016

Sergey Igorevich Puklich

22/04/1973

Dispute for reinstatement in the post and compensation of damages

28/05/2015

Sovetskiy district court of Ryazan

05/08/2015

Ryazan regional court

1,500

62111/16

18/10/2016

Diana Aleksandrovna Yalbayeva

15/07/1983

Dispute to recover legal expenses from lawyer for his failure to provide legal services.

22/01/2015

Central District Court of Barnaul of the Altai Region

06/05/2015

Altai Regional Court

1,500

5751/17

05/01/2017

Svetlana Nikolayevna Zaytseva

20/02/1963

Civil proceedings about validity of the contract for selling the applicant ’ s room.

13/10/2015

Gubkinskiy District Court

28/12/2015

Court of Yamalo-Nenetskiy autonomous district

1,500

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