37923/12;12478/14;14144/14;28396/14;36493/14;46777/14;55238/14;67033/14

THIRD SECTION             CASE OF ATAKISHIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 37923/12 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 Atakishiyeva 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.  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 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 ...” 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, cited above, 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 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 for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant /household (in euros)[1]     37923/12 29/05/2012 Yelena Valentinovna Atakishiyeva 21/09/1966   eviction dispute 30/08/2011   Avtozavodskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod 06/12/2011   Nizhegorodskiy Regional Court 1,500     12478/14 28/02/2014 Irina Vyacheslavovna Tsepova 10/12/1961   employment dispute and non-pecuniary damages claim 05/10/2012   Vyksa Town Court of the Nizhny Novgorod Region 25/12/2012   Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court 1,500     14144/14 29/01/2014 Tatyana Ivanovna Serokhina 04/02/1955   contractual debt dispute 06/03/2013   Leninskiy District Court of Orenburg 15/08/2013   Orenburg Regional Court 1,500     28396/14 16/03/2014 Household Badiga Vasilyevna Kushkumbayeva 28/06/1957   Marina Andreyevna Kushkumbayeva 02/06/1980   vindicatory claim 06/11/2012   Kamyshlov Town Court of the Sverdlovsk Region 13/02/2013   Sverdlovsk Regional Court 1,500     36493/14 29/04/2014 Yevstafiy Vitalyevich Novikov 13/02/1958   tort claim 06/08/2013   Leninskiy District Court of Nizhny Novgorof 29/10/2013   Nizhegorodskiy Regional Court 1,500     46777/14 05/06/2014 Viktor Mikhaylovich Kruk 31/08/1946   tort claim 16/04/2013   Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow 12/12/2013   Moscow City Court 1,500     55238/14 20/07/2014 Roman Yuryevich Palashchenko 11/05/1971   claim regarding nullity of a flat purchase agreement 31/07/2013   Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow 20/01/2014   Moscow City Court 1,500     67033/14 22/09/2014 Vadim Aleksandrovich Bushkovskiy 18/02/1968   employment dispute 18/11/2013   Vuktyl Town Court of the Komi republic 20/01/2014   Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 1,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.