Last Updated on November 5, 2019 by LawEuro
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36040/04
Marina Mikhaylovna KOZYREVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 23 January 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and FatoşAracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 August 2004,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Ms Marina MikhaylovnaKozyreva, was a Russian national who was born in 1977 and lived in Velikiye Luki, Pskov Region. She was represented before the Court by Mr D.Y. Kozyrev, a lawyer practising in Velikiye Luki. By a letter dated 20 December 2004, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant had died on 21 October 2016 and that her husband, Mr Andrey Yevgenyevich Kozyrev, wished to pursue the application.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. On 2 December 2003 the applicant lodged a claim against the Social Welfare Authority of Velikiye Luki Town Council (hereinafter referred to as “the defendant”) seeking an increase in the amount of child allowance granted to her. In her claim she stated that the amount of the child allowance should be calculated on the basis of the consumer price index. She referred to a Constitutional Court ruling concerning allowances granted to those who had been involved in the cleaning-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site.
5. The defendant submitted that the applicant had erroneously interpreted the law on social allowances, that she was entitled to a fixed child allowance under the law (as in force at the material time), and that the above-mentioned Constitutional Court ruling was inapplicable to her case.
6. On 2 February 2004 the Velikiye Luki Town Court of the Pskov Region dismissed the applicant’s claim. On the same day she lodged an appeal against the judgment.
7. On 26 February 2004 the Pskov Regional Court received the defendant’s objections to the applicant’s appeal wherein the defendant simply reiterated its submissions before the first-instance court. The applicant alleged that she had learned about the defendant’s submissions when talking on the phone with a staff member of the Velikiye Luki Town Council on an unspecified date, after the case had been transferred to the Pskov Regional Court.
8. On 3 March 2004 the applicant was informed that the appeal hearing would be held on 23 March 2004.
9. On 12 March 2004 the applicant lodged a request with the President of the Pskov Regional Court asking for the submissions provided by the defendant to be sent to her.
10. On 19 March 2004 the Pskov Regional Court received her request but did not respond to it.
11. On 23 March 2004 the Pskov Regional Court upheld the decision of 2 February 2004. The court analysed the applicant’s arguments and stated that the first-instance court had correctly applied the law on social allowances and that the applicant was entitled to a fixed child allowance. It did not refer to the defendant’s submissions.
B. Relevant domestic law
12. Under Article 343 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), as worded at the material time, the parties to proceedings could study the case file, appeals and objections to appeals at the court registry.
13. Article 344 of CCP provides that parties to proceedings may submit written objections to appeals, together with supporting documents (and copies thereof corresponding to the number of parties to the proceedings).
COMPLAINTS
14. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention of the violation of the equality of arms principle in her case in that the court had failed to send her the defendant’s objections.
15. She also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the court decisions had not contained adequate reasoning.
THE LAW
A. Standing of the applicant’s husband to pursue the application
16. The applicant died on 21 October 2016. In a letter of 10 June 2017 Mr Kozyrev, the applicant’s husband and heir, expressed his intention to pursue the application.
17. The Court considers that the applicant’s husband has a legitimate interest in taking the applicant’s place (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999‑VI, and Ernestina Zullo v. Italy [GC], no. 64897/01, § 37, 29 March 2006).
18. Accordingly, the Court holds that Mr Kozyrev has standing to continue the present proceedings.
B. Complaint about the violation of the equality of arms principle
19. The applicant complained about the domestic court’s failure to send her the defendant’s objections to her appeal and give her an opportunity to reply to those objections. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides, in so far as relevant:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations …, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing…”
20. The Government submitted that there had been no breach of the applicant’s rights under the Convention. They stated that the national law did not oblige the courts to send (to the appellant) objections to an appeal within a particular time-limit; they added that the applicant and her representative could have studied the case file, which contained the objections, at any time before 23 March 2004 but they had failed to do so. Furthermore, the defendant’s objections to the appeal had included the same submissions as those in the objections to the applicant’s claim; no new arguments or evidence had been added. The applicant had been informed in a timely fashion of the appeal hearing but had not attended it and had not asked for the hearing to be postponed in order that she might study the objections. Lastly, the appeal court had not based its decision on the defendant’s objections and had not even referred to them in its judgment.
21. The applicant maintained her complaint.
22. The Court reiterates that the principle of equality of arms is part of the wider concept of a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, GorraizLizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, § 56, ECHR 2004-III). That principle implies that each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case under conditions that do not place him or her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his or her opponent (see DomboBeheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274). For its part, the right to an adversarial trial, which is also part of the wider concept of a fair hearing, means the opportunity for parties to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed or evidence adduced by the other party (see Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, 23 June 1993, § 63, Series A no. 262, and Olga Nazarenko v. Russia, no. 3189/07, § 38, 31 May 2016).
23. In the present case, the Court notes that on 26 February 2004 the defendant submitted its objections to the applicant’s appeal and that those objections reiterated basically the same arguments as those contained in its objections to the applicant’s claim lodged with the first-instance court. The Pskov Regional Court did not base its decision on any new factual or legal submissions (see Holub v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 24880/05, 14 December 2010, and, by contrast, C.M. v. Switzerland, no. 7318/09, §§ 22-23, 17 January 2017).
24. Moreover, the applicant’s case was subjected to a full and adversarial examination before the first-instance court, where she had an opportunity to comment on the defendant’s position (see Valchev and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 47450/11 and 2 others, § 78, 21 January 2014).
25. The Court furthermore reiterates that Article 6 cannot be construed as conferring on litigants an automatic right to obtain a specific form of service of court documents (see Bogonos v. Russia (dec.), no. 68798/01, 5 February 2004). It is incumbent on the interested party to display appropriate diligence in the defence of his or her interests (see Teuschler v. Germany (dec.), no. 47636/99, 4 October 2001).
26. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that under Russian law, parties may access their respective case files and examine the documents contained therein. Hence, the applicant could have studied the defendant’s objections at the court registry; there is no evidence that her access to the case file was restricted. Moreover, she did not ask for the appeal hearing to be postponed and did not attend it, even though she received a summons in a timely fashion. Thus, the applicant failed to act with due diligence.
27. Therefore, the non-communication of the defendant’s objections did not place the applicant at a substantial disadvantage vis‑à‑vis her opponent or impermissibly impinge on the adversarial nature of the proceedings. Her complaint about the failure to give her an opportunity to study the opposite party’s objections is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
C. Other alleged violations of the Convention
28. The applicant also complained about the courts’ failure to provide adequate reasoning in their judgments.
29. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
30. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 15 February 2018.
Fatoş Aracı Luis López Guerra
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply