CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 7 March 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 40947/11 Artur FRIDMAN against Lithuania lodged on 9 June 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Artur Fridman, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1980 and lives in Vilnius. He is represented before the Court by Mr   V.   Onačko, a lawyer practising in Vilnius. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 5 March 2009 the applicant and J.S. signed a contract on lifelong maintenance ( išlaikymo iki gyvos galvos sutartis ). According to that contract, J.S. transferred her apartment to the applicant, and the applicant undertook to take care of J.S. until the time of her death: to provide her with food and medication, maintain her apartment, walk her dog, and provide any other necessary assistance. In June 2009 J.S. submitted a request to the court to terminate the contract on the grounds that the applicant was not fulfilling his obligations. The applicant objected to the termination and argued that he had complied with the terms of the contract. Relying on the testimonies of several witnesses, on 29 January 2010 the Vilnius Regional Court, in an oral hearing in which both the applicant and J.S. were present, satisfied J.S.’s request and terminated the contract. The applicant appealed against that judgment. On 11 October 2010 the Court of Appeal held an oral hearing in which the lawyer of J.S. was present but the applicant or his lawyer were not. According to the applicant, he received the notification about the time and place of the hearing by standard (non-registered) post only on 14 October 2010. The Court of Appeal adopted its judgment on 22 October 2010, in which it upheld the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The applicant submitted a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court. He complained, inter alia , that he had not been informed about the hearing before the Court of Appeal and thus could not effectively defend his interests. On 4 November 2010 the Supreme Court refused to examine the applicant’s cassation appeal as raising no important legal questions. Subsequently the applicant submitted two other cassation appeals but the Supreme Court, on 6 December 2010 and 10 January 2011, refused to examine them on the same grounds. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice concerning notification of court hearings are summarised in Švenčionienė v. Lithuania , no. 37259/04, §§   13 ‑ 18, 25 November 2008. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was not properly notified about the oral hearing before the Court of Appeal, thereby breaching his defence rights and the principle of equality of the parties.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant duly notified about the oral hearing of 11 October 2010 before the Court of Appeal, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Kolegovy v. Russia , no. 15226/05, § 40, 1 March 2012, and the cases cited therein)?