CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 février 2017

.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 } .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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8FA62C20 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s5E9AE8E6 { margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse; } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8E677E93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:5.15pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s8CB7E02D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:5.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC4A995C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; font-size:8pt } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 6 February 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 5918/13 Aleksandr Anatolyevich KOVALEV against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended) The applicants are Russian nationals. The applicants’ details appear in the Appendix. A.     The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Application no.   5918/13 lodged by Mr Kovalev On 27   October 2011 the applicant purchased a plot of land and applied to the local office of the Federal Service of State Registry (“Registry”) seeking to register his title to that plot. On 23   December 2011 the Registry refused to register the applicant’s title. On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against the Registry challenging the refusal. On 23   January 2012 the Nelidovskiy Town Court granted the applicant’s claim and ordered the Registry to register the applicant’s title to the plot of land. On 19   April 2012 the Tverskoy Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal. On 10   May 2012 the Registry issued the applicant with a certificate of ownership. On 5 July 2012 the Registry lodged a cassation appeal with the Presidium of the Tverskoy Regional Court. On 27 August 2012 the Presidium of the Tverskoy Regional Court quashed the lower courts’ judgments and dismissed the applicant’s claim. According to the applicant, he was not summoned to that hearing. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a second cassation appeal with the federal Supreme Court. It is unclear whether in his cassation appeal the applicant complained about the failure to summon him to the hearing. On 25   October 2012 a single judge of the Supreme Court of Russia refused to transfer the applicant’s appeal for consideration on the merits on the ground that the first instance court duly considered evidence of the case and there is no indication of incorrect application of material law. It appears that the registration of the applicant’s title to the plot of land is still in force and the applicant pays taxes on it. 2.     Applications nos.   25181/14 and 25324/14 lodged by Ms Lyu and   Ms   Kim respectively On 20   September 2010 Ms Lyu’s (“the first applicant”) mother, Ms   Kim (“the second applicant”) purchased a plot of land and an unfinished house. On 4   July 2011 the second applicant was issued with a certificate of ownership of the house. On 4   October 2012 the second applicant transferred that property to the first applicant by the deed of gift. On an unspecified date the first applicant registered her title to the property. On an unspecified date the second applicant’s husband lodged an application with the first instance court against the applicants seeking to obtain ownership over the house and a plot of land. The second applicant lodged a counterclaim seeking to confirm her title to the property. On 15   May 2013 the Anapa Town Court found for the second applicant’s husband and dismissed the counterclaim. On 2 July 2013 the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed that judgment on appeal and found for the applicants. On an unspecified date the second applicant’s husband lodged a cassation appeal. On 4   July 2013 the applicants were summoned to a hearing before the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court. On 9 July 2013 they requested the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court to adjourn the hearing on the ground that they had received neither a copy of the cassation appeal nor a copy of the decision of the single judge transferring the cassation appeal to the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court for consideration on the merits. According to the applicants, they received no response to that request. On 10   July 2013 the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the judgment of 2 July 2013 and upheld that of 15   May 2013. On 19 August 2013 the applicants lodged a cassation appeal with the federal Supreme Court arguing inter alia that the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court failed to adjourn the hearing, thus depriving them of an opportunity to respond to the plaintiff’s appeal. On 17   January 2014 a single judge of the Supreme Court of Russia refused to transfer the applicants’ appeal for consideration on the merits without addressing the applicants’ complaint regarding the regional cassation court’s failure to adjourn the hearing. 3.     Application no.   61417/15 lodged by Mr Li The applicant was the head of the Laboratory of Judicial Experts of the Tomsk Region. On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against the Ministry of Finance seeking to recover 10,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in non-pecuniary damage due to unlawful prosecution. On 31   May 2013 the Kirov District Court granted the applicant’s claim in part and awarded him RUB 600,000. Both parties appealed against the judgment. On 2   July 2014 the Tomsk Regional Court dismissed the respondent’s appeal and granted the applicant’s appeal. The court quashed the judgment of 31   May 2013 and granted the applicant’s claim in full, i.e. RUB   10,000,000. On 28 October 2013 the applicant received the writ of execution. On 2 October 2014 the judgment was fully executed and the applicant received RUB   10,000,000. It appears that the applicant changed his address during the civil proceedings and informed the courts accordingly. In May 2015 the representative of the Ministry of Finance informed the applicant that the judgment of 2   July 2014 had been quashed on 21   April 2015 by the Supreme Court of Russia. In May and on 18 September 2015 the applicant applied to the Supreme Court of Russia seeking to obtain copies of the cassation appeal and of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Russia. On 2   October 2015 the applicant lodged a supervisory review application against the judgment of 21   April 2015. On 16   October 2015 the applicant’s supervisory review application was rejected as being lodged out of time. On 5   October 2015 the Kirov District Court ordered the applicant to reimburse the sums he received under the judgment of 2   July 2013. It appears that the decision of 5   October 2015 remained unenforced. On 15   October 2015 the applicant received all claimed documents. It resulted from those documents that the summonses relating to the cassation examination of the applicant’s case by the federal Supreme Court had been sent to his old address. On 11   December 2015 the Kirov District Court granted the applicant’s claim and extended the time limit for lodging a supervisory review application. On 25   February 2016 the applicant lodged a supervisory review application with the Supreme Court of Russia arguing that the regional cassation court did not summon him to a hearing. It appears that on 29   February 2016 a single judge of the Supreme Court of Russia refused to transfer the applicant’s supervisory review application for consideration on the merits. It is unclear whether the single judge addressed the applicant’s complaint regarding the regional cassation court’s failure to summon him to a hearing. 4.     Application no.   5261/16 lodged by Ms   Sechina On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against a mining company, her former employer, seeking compensation for damage resulting from the job-related injuries. On 16 July 2014 the Starooskolskiy Town Court found for the applicant and awarded her RUB   213,021. On 21   October 2014 the Belgorod Regional Court quashed that judgment on appeal and reduced the amount of compensation to RUB   200,606.7. On 27   April 2015 the mining company lodged a cassation appeal. On 2   July 2015 the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court quashed the judgment of 21   October 2014 and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It appears that neither the applicant nor her representative were duly summoned to the cassation hearing. On 20   August 2015 the Belgorod Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. In parallel, the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court of Russia against the judgment of 2 July 2015. She complained that she did not receive a copy of the cassation appeal and a copy of the decision of the single judge transferring the cassation appeal to the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court. She further complained that the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court had not summoned her to a hearing. On 30   September 2015 a single judge of the Supreme Court of Russia refused to transfer the applicant’s appeal for consideration on the merits without addressing the applicant’s complaint regarding the regional cassation court’s failure to summon her to the hearing, to send her copies of the cassation appeal and the single judge’s decision. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice governing the cassation review of judicial decisions since 1   January 2012 is summed up in the Court’s decision in the case of Abramyan and Others v.   Russia (nos.   38951/13 and   59611/13, §§   32-41 and   49-53, 12   May 2015). COMPLAINTS Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, Mr Kovalev, Mr Li and Ms   Sechina complained that the cassation courts at regional or federal level failed to duly summon them to the hearings and thus deprived them of an opportunity to argue their cases against the arguments of the respondents. Relying on the same Article, Ms Lyu and Ms Kim complained that by refusing to adjourn the hearing and by considering the defendant’s cassation appeal in their absence the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court infringed their right to a court.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention on account of the cassation courts’ alleged failure to inform them of the hearing and to give them an adequate possibility of responding to another party’s cassation appeal in adversarial proceedings?   2.     Did the applicants have the opportunity to study and comment on the arguments and evidence submitted by the respondents before the Presidium of Regional courts or the federal Supreme Court? If not, was there a breach of the applicants’ right to adversarial proceedings and equality of arms enshrined in Article   6 § 1 of the Convention?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name Date of birth Place of residence Nationality   Represented by   Complaints   5918/13 27/11/2012 Aleksandr Anatolyevich KOVALEV 28/10/1954 Nelidovo Russian   Art.6     25181/14 12/03/2014 Irina Aleksandrovna LYU 20/10/1978 Anapa Russian   Art.6     25324/14 12/03/2014 Olga Viktorovna KIM 26/11/1958 Ussuriysk Russian   Art.6     61417/15 04/12/2015 Vitaliy Nikolayevich LI 16/10/1953 Tomsk Russian   Tatyana Vladimirovna TRUBNIKOVA   Art.6     5261/16 14/01/2016 Nadezhda Sergeyevna SECHINA 27/09/1971 Staryy Oskol Russian   Dmitriy Alekseyevich SHIRMANOV   Art.6