THIRD SECTION

CASE OF MARYASOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Applications nos. 1956/05, 12055/07, 25655/07, 32983/07, 35385/07, 44395/07, 10688/08, 7461/09, 29775/09, 5290/10, 19055/10, 33694/10, 37955/10, 57867/10, 65011/10, 6914/11, 6951/11, 27075/11, 33042/11, 40292/11, 42297/11, 46006/11, 52428/11 and 3537/12 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

22 November 2016

This judgment is final . It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Maryasova and Others v. Russia ,

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

Helena Jäderblom , President, Dmitry Dedov , Branko Lubarda , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 3 November 2016 ,

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

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in twenty-four applications against t he Russian Federation (see application numbers in Appendix I) lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by twenty-four Russian nationals whose names and the dates on which they introduced their applications are set out in A ppendix I.

2 . The names of the applicants ’ representatives are listed in A ppendix II. The Russian Government (“the Governm ent”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin , Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.

3 . The applicants complained , in particular, that they had been denied an opportunity to appear in person before the appeal courts in the civil proceedings to which they had been parties .

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4 . The applicants were all parties to unrelated sets of civil proceedings.

5 . Some applicants attended the hearings before the first-instance courts; all of them were absent from the appeal hearings. Whenever the appeal courts addressed the issue of their absence, they did not check whether the applicants or t heir representatives received the summons, whether it was necessary to adjourn hearings or whether their presence was required due to the nature of the claims.

6 . The dates of the final judgments are set out in Appendix I.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

7 . The domestic provisions governing notification of litigants in civil proceedings are described in Gankin and Others v. Russia, (nos. 2430/06, 1454/08, 11670/10 and 12938/12, §§ 16-17, 31 May 2016).

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

8 . 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 OF THE CONVENTION

9 . The applicants complained that their right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention had been breached on account of the domestic courts ’ failure to ensure their participation in the appeal hearing s . Article 6 § of the Convention 1 reads in the relevant part as follows :

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

A. Admissibility

10 . The Government submitted that Mr Izabakarov ’ s complaint was time-barred because it had been introduced on 17 June 2011, that is to say more than six months after the final domestic decision in his case had been made on 1 December 2010.

11 . A copy of the appeal judgment submitted by Mr Izabakarov shows that he had received the judgment on 17 December 2010. It follows that the date of introduction of Mr Izabakarov ’ s application lies within six months of the date on which he became aware of the final decision in his case. The Government ’ s objection should therefore be dismissed.

12 . The Court further notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

13 . The Government submitted that the applicants had been duly notified of the forthcoming hearings . Unlike in criminal proceedings, civil disputes did not require the presence of both parties for appeal proceedings, and the nature of the dispute in the present cases had not call ed for the applicants ’ personal attendance . In the case of Ms Maryasova , the applicant ’ s lawyer had been informed of the upcoming hearing; the applicants Ms Mariya Tukova and Ms Svetlana Tukova had been notified of the appeal hearings by telephone; and the summonses sent to Mr Akhpashev and Mr Kalinchuk had been returned undelivered. Lastly, in the c ase of Mr Izabakarov , the Government argued that both litigants had lived in a small village and therefore the applicant should have learned about the forthcoming appeal hearing from the opposing party.

14 . The applicants maintained their complaints .

15 . The Court reiterates that the domestic court s are under an obligation to ascertain, on the basis of the available evidence, whether the parties were duly served with the information about the forthcoming hearing , for litigants must be apprised of the hearing in such a way as to have an opportunity to attend it should they decide to exercise the right to personal presence established in Russian law . It is on the basis of the domestic courts ’ reasoning that the Court will decide whether the litigants were afforded an adequate opportunity to present their case effectively (see Gankin and Others, cited above, §§ 39-40 ) .

16 . The applicants alleged that they had not received the summonses and had been unaware of the date and place of the appe al hearings in their cases. The Court notes, as it did in Gankin and O thers , cited above, that the appeal judgments did not mention any proof of receipt of summonses by the applicants or their representatives and did not contain any analysis as to whether or not it was necessary to adjourn hearings pending proper notification . Nor did the appeal courts say anything about the nature of the applicants ’ legal claims which might have rendered their presence unnecessary. It follows that the arguments raised by the Government were not tested in the domestic proceedings and appeared for the first time in the proceedings before the Court. The Court reiterates in this regard that that a lack of or deficiency in the reason ing in the domestic decisions 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. For that reason, the Court is unable to entertain the claims which the respondent Government raised for the first time in the proceedings before it (see Gankin and Others , cited above, § 41, with further references, and Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia , nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, § 37, 16 February 2016 ). In sum, the Court does not see any argument in the Government ’ s submissions that might warrant a conclusion different from that reached in Gankin and Others .

17 . Having regard to its established case-law and the ci rcumstances of the present case , the Court finds that by embarking on the merits of the appeals without attempting to ascertain whether the applicants had been aware – or should have been aware – of the date and time of the hearings , the domestic courts deprived them of the opportunity to attend and to present their cases effectively , in breach of Article 6 of the Convention.

18 . There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants .

III . OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

19 . T he Court has also examined the other complaints submitted by the applicants. However, having regard to all the material in its possession and in so far as those complaints fall within the Court ’ s competence, it finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that these parts of the applications must be rejected as manifestly ill-founde d, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

IV . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

20 . 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.”

21 . Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law in similar cases , the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the sum s listed in Appendix II, plus any tax that may chargeable on that amounts .

22 . 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.

23 . The Court holds that when an applicant has suffered an infringement of his right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he or she should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he or she would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded. The most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the possibility for the applicant to request the reopening of the proceedings. In its recent case the Court laid down the principles applicable to the reopening of terminated civil proceedings on the basis of the Court ’ s judgment ( see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) , no. 22251/08 , §§ 57-58, ECHR 2015).

24 . In this connection, the Court reiterates that in Russia a finding by the Court of a violation of the Convention or its Protocols is ground s for reopening civil proceedings under Article 392 §§ 2(2) and 4(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure and for reviewing the domestic judgments in the light of the Convention principles established by the Court (see Davydov v. Russia , no. 18967/07 , §§ 10-15, 30 October 2014 ).

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;

2 . Declares the complaint concerning the unfairness of the civil proceedings admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible ;

3 . Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

4 . Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts listed in Appendix II , plus any tax that may be chargeable, 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 such amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period , plus three percentage points;

5 . Dismisses the remainder of the applicants ’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 November 2016 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Fatoş Aracı Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar President

Appendix I. Facts

Application number and applicant ’ s name

Date of intro- duction

Name of the appeal court and date of the final decision in the civil proceedings concerned

1956/05

Anastasiya Pavlovna Maryasova

09/12/2004

Kaliningrad Regional Court, 16 June 2004

12055/07

Yelena Sergeyevna Dmitriyeva

02/02/2007

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic , 2 October 2006

25655/07

Mariya Grigoryevna Tukova

12/05/2007

Military Court of the Northern Caucasus Circuit ,

4 April 2007

32983/07

Olga Vladimirovna Tikhonova

04/07/2007

Krasnodar Regional Court, 20 March 2007

35385/07

Vyacheslav Valeryevich Krikunov

16/07/2007

Kaluga Regional Court, 5 October 2006 (received on 5 February 2007)

44395/07

Svetlana Valeryevna Tukova

12/05/2007

Military Court of the Northern Caucasus Circuit ,

4 April 2007

10688/08

Zoya Kozminichna Ryabchikova

09/01/2008

Belgorod Regional Court , 30 October 2007

7461/09

Nina Ivanovna Stetsenko

31/12/2008

Voronezh Regional Court, 6 May 2008 (received on 2 July 2008)

29775/09

Andrey Vladimirovich Sizonenko

04/04/2009

Volgograd Regional Court ,

5 February 2009

5290/10

Mikhail Mikhaylovich Belous

28/12/2009

Prikubanskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region

21 July 2009

19055/10

Petr Valeryevich Akhpashev

05/03/2010

Perm Regional Court,

16 February 2010

33694/10

Andrey Nikolayevich Naumov

02/06/2010

Moscow City Court,

3 December 2009

37955/10

Valeriy Alekseyevich Rachkov

31/05/2010

Moscow Regional Court,

1 December 2009

57867/10

Georgiy Albertovich Kropachev

08/09/2010

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court,

10 March 2010

65011/10

Svetlana Yuryevna Chernykh

02/11/2010

Murmansk Regional Court

5 May 2010 (two sets of proceedings)

6914/11

Anatoliy Olegovich Churgel

11/01/2011

Moscow City Court,

19 August 2010

6951/11

Aleksandr Ivanovich Malashenko

12/01/2011

Supreme Court of the Kareliya Republic ,

3 August 2010

27075/11

Varvara Olegovna Polenova

04/04/2011

Krasnodar Regional Court,

7 October 2010

33042/11

Valeriy Vladimirovich Kalinchuk

10/05/2011

Novosibirsk Regional Court,

23 November 2010

40292/11

Ibragim Aliyevich Izabakarov

14/06/2011

Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic ,

1 December 2010 (received on 17 December 2010)

42297/11

Sergey Anatolyevich Guryanov

01/07/2011

Moscow Regional Court,

9 December 2010 ( received on 4 January 2011)

46006/11

Yelena Ilyinichna Tsyganova

05/07/2011

Yaroslavl Regional Court,

12 May 2011

52428/11

Zulfiya Rafisovna Gilmanshina

18/07/2011

Supreme Court of the Udmurt iya Republic ,

19 January 2011

3537/12

Vladimir Savelyevich Vasilenko

10/12/2011

Krasnodar Regional Court,

19 July 2011

Appendix II. Awards made by the Court under Article 41 of the Convention

Application number and applicant’s name

Represented by

Award in respect of n on-pecuniary damage

Award in respect of costs and expenses

1956/05

Anastasiya Pavlovna Maryasova

EUR 1 , 500

12055/07

Yelena Sergeyevna Dmitriyeva

EUR 1 ,5 00

25655/07

Mariya Grigoryevna Tukova

Mr U. Sommer

EUR 1,500

32983/07

Olga Vladimirovna Tikhonova

Mr V. Ponomarev

EUR 1,500

35385/07

Vyacheslav Valeryevich Krikunov

EUR 665

44395/07

Svetlana Valeryevna Tukova

EUR 1,500

10688/08

Zoya Kozminichna Ryabchikova

Mr E. Rozhkov

EUR 1 , 500

7461/09

Nina Ivanovna Stetsenko

Mr A. Stetsenko

EUR 1,500

EUR 385

29775/09

Andrey Vladimirovich Sizonenko

EUR 1,500

5290/10

Mikhail Mikhaylovich Belous

EUR 1,500

19055/10

Petr Valeryevich Akhpashev

EUR 1,500

33694/10

Andrey Nikolayevich Naumov

EUR 1,500

37955/10

Valeriy Alekseyevich Rachkov

EUR 1,5 00

57867/10

Georgiy Albertovich Kropachev

Mr D. Boyev

EUR 1,500

EUR 600

65011/10

Svetlana Yuryevna Chernykh

EUR 1,500

6914/11

Anatoliy Olegovich Churgel

EUR 1,500

6951/11

Aleksandr Ivanovich Malashenko

EUR 1,500

EUR 23

27075/11

Varvara Olegovna Polenova

EUR 1,500

33042/11

Valeriy Vladimirovich Kalinchuk

EUR 1,500

40292/11

Ibragim Aliyevich Izabakarov

EUR 1 , 500

EUR 21

42297/11

Sergey Anatolyevich Guryanov

EUR 1 , 500

EUR 14

46006/11

Yelena Ilyinichna Tsyganova

EUR 1 , 500

52428/11

Zulfiya Rafisovna Gilmanshina

EUR 1 , 500

3537/12

Vladimir Savelyevich Vasilenko

EUR 1 , 500