CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 septembre 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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 23 September 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 60289/14 Aleksandr Anatolyevich GORBULIN against Russia lodged on 12 August 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Anatolyevich Gorbulin, is a Russian national who was born in 1982 and is detained in Labytnangi, Yamalo ‑ Nenetskiy Region. The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     On 22 May 2008 the applicant arrived at the IK-8 correctional colony, Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region. 4.     In 2008 the applicant’s wife instituted divorce proceedings. On 9   April 2008 the Justice of the Peace of Circuit no. 2 of the Krasnosulinskiy district, Rostov Region (“the Rostov Justice”) sent a letter rogatory to the courts of Tyumen Region, asking them to interview the applicant and to establish whether he wished to attend the hearing in person. On 22 April 2008 the Tyumen regional division of the Judicial Department received the letter. 5.     On 4 July 2008 a Justice of the Peace in Labytnangi fixed an interview with the applicant for 18 July 2008 and sent two summonses to his home address, which his wife had listed in her statement of claim. Both summonses were returned undelivered. 6.     On 10 September 2009 the Tyumen courts informed the Rostov Justice that it had been impossible to reach the applicant. On the same day the Rostov Justice decided to hold a hearing in the applicant’s absence, noting that “although the applicant [had] his registered residence at the address mentioned by the plaintiff, he [had] not appear[ed for an interview] before the Justice of the Peace in Labytnangi”. 7.     On 18 September 2008 the Rostov Justice granted the divorce. On the same day a copy of the decision was sent to the applicant’s home address. 8.     In 2013, the applicant learnt of the judgment of 18 September 2008. He asked for an extension of the time-limit for lodging an appeal against it. He argued that he had never received the judgment of 18 September 2008 and that he had been previously unaware of the divorce proceedings. 9.     On 26 December 2013 the Rostov Justice heard evidence from the applicant’s former wife who claimed that the applicant should have been aware of the divorce proceedings in 2008 “because his mother had received ... the final judgment [of 18 September 2008]”. The Rostov Justice held that “an excerpt of the judgment [had been] ... served [on the applicant] in person on 31 October 2008” and refused the applicant’s application to extend the time limit for lodging an appeal. The hearing was held in the applicant’s absence. 10.     The applicant appealed against the decision. On 15 May 2014 the Krasnosulinskiy District Court of Rostov Region upheld the decision of 26   December 2013, again in his absence. COMPLAINTS 11.     The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the judgment of 18 September 2008 was not served on him and that the courts refused his application to extend the statutory time-limit for appeal. The applicant also complains, under Article 6 of the Convention, that the courts failed to ensure his effective participation in the hearing of 18 September 2008 and in the leave-to-appeal proceedings before the courts of both instances. 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: (a)     did the Justice of the Peace ensure the applicant’s effective participation in the hearing of 18 September 2008 before proceeding to the merits of the case? (b)     did the Justice of the Peace inform the applicant of the judgment of 18   September 2008 so as to enable him to lodge a statement of appeal within the statutory time-limit? (c)     did the courts’ refusal to extend the statutory time-limit for lodging an appeal breach the applicant’s right to a court guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention? (d)     did the Krasnosulinskiy District Court of the Rostov Region ensure the applicant’s effective participation in the appeal hearing of 15 May 2014? 2.     The Government are requested to provide the documents showing timely service of the court documents (summonses and the judgment of 18   September 2009) onto the applicant.