Communicated on 17 June 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 37285/12 Boris Pidarovich KHUBIYEV against Russia lodged on 12 May 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Boris Pidarovich Khubiyev , is a Russian national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Uchkeken in the Karachayevo ‑ Cherkessiya Republic .

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

A . The circumstances of the case

3. In 1986 the applicant took part in the emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a result he suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions and became entitled to monthly payments in respect of health damage.

4. In 2007 the applicant brought a civil action against the Welfare and Employment Directorate ( Управление труда и социального развития ) of the Malokarachayevskiy Municipal District and the Ministry of Finance, seeking recalculation of the monthly payments and compensation in respect of arrears.

5. On 11 December 2007 the Malokarachayevskiy District Court of the Karachayevo-Cherkessiya Republic held in the applicant ’ s favour , ordering recalculation of the monthly payments and granted him a lump-sum compensation of arrears of RUB 3, 226 , 125. The defendants did not appeal against the judgment, which became final on 21 December 2007 and was executed.

6. On 5 October 2011 the Malokarachayevskiy District Prosecutor requested to extend the statutory time-limit for lodging an appeal. He argued that the prosecutor ’ s office had not been notified about the civil action brought by the applicant.

7 . On 10 November 2011 the Malokarachayevskiy District Court granted the prosecutor ’ s request. The court found that as the prosecutor ’ s participation in the civil proceedings concerning compensation in respect of health damage was mandatory , he should have been notified about the hearing of 11 December 2007.

8 . The prosecutor lodged a statement of appeal with the Supreme Court of the Karachayevo-Cherkessiya Republic. On 13 December 2011 the Supreme Court of the Karachayevo-Cherkessiya Republic received the applicant ’ s request for adjournment together with the documents showing that he had been admitted to hospital and was unable to attend the appeal hearing in person.

9. On 14 December 2011 the S upreme Court of the Karachayevo ‑ Cherkes siya Republic held the appeal hearing. It rejected the applicant ’ s adjournment request finding that he had failed to show that his medical condition prevented him from appearing before the court. The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor ’ s appeal and quashed the judgment of 11 December 2007 , finding that the District Court had erred in the application of material law.

B. Relevant domestic law

10. Article 112 of the C ode of C ivil P rocedure (“CCP”) provides that a competent court may extend an expired time-limit for procedural actions, such as lodging an appeal, if the court finds that a party has a valid excuse for a failure to comply with that time-limit.

11. Under Article 338 of the CCP in force before 1 January 2012 an appeal in a civil case could be lodged within ten days after the delivery of a first ‑ insta nce judgment in its final form.

COMPLAINTS

12 . The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the extension of the time-limit for appeal breached the principle of legal certainty. He also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that ensuing annulment of the judgment of 11 December 2007 breached h is right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

13 . The applicant further complains that the appeal court ’ s refusal to adjourn the hearing of 14 December 2011 breached his right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of legal certainty respected , r egard being had to the extension of the statutory time-limit for appeal (see Bezrukovy v. Russia , no. 34616/02, §§ 32-36, 10 May 2012)?

2. Did the quashing of the final judgment in the applicant ’ s favour constitute an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of the possession in the form of the judgment debt? If so, was such interference justified in terms of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention ?

3 . Was the refusal by the Supreme Court of the Karacha y evo-Cherkes siya Republic to adjourn the hearing of 14 December 2011 necessary and justified, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? The parties are required to submit all documents at their disposal in respect of this refusal.