The applicant complained that she had been deprived of an opportunity to comment on the appeal lodged by the defendant in her case.<\/p>\n
European Court of Human Rights This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Yakovlyeva v. Ukraine,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits, President, Having deliberated in private on 23 November 2023,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 3 October 2015.<\/p>\n 2. Notice of the application was given to the Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d).<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicant complained that she had been deprived of an opportunity to comment on the appeal lodged by the defendant in her case. She also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a06 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the principle of equality of arms had been breached on account of the domestic courts\u2019 failure to serve the appeal on her or otherwise inform her of the appeal lodged in her case.<\/p>\n 6. The Court reiterates that the general concept of a fair trial, encompassing the fundamental principle that proceedings should be adversarial (see Ruiz-Mateos v.\u00a0Spain, 23\u00a0June 1993, \u00a7\u00a063, Series\u00a0A no.\u00a0262), requires that the person against whom proceedings have been initiated should be informed of this fact (see Dilipak and Karakaya v.\u00a0Turkey, nos.\u00a07942\/05 and 24838\/05, \u00a7 77, 4 March 2014). The principle of equality of arms requires that each party should 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-\u00e0-vis his or her opponent (see Avoti\u0146\u0161 v.\u00a0Latvia\u00a0[GC], no.\u00a017502\/07, \u00a7\u00a0119, ECHR 2016, and Dombo\u00a0Beheer B.V. v.\u00a0the Netherlands, 27\u00a0October 1993, \u00a7\u00a033, Series\u00a0A\u00a0no.\u00a0274). Each party must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed or evidence adduced by the other party, including the other party\u2019s appeal. What is at stake is the litigants\u2019 confidence in the workings of justice, which is based on,\u00a0inter alia, the knowledge that they have had the opportunity to express their views on every document in the file (see Beer v.\u00a0Austria, no.\u00a030428\/96, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a017\u201118, 6\u00a0February 2001).<\/p>\n 7. It may, therefore, be incumbent on the domestic courts to ascertain that their summonses or other documents have reached the parties sufficiently in advance and, where appropriate, record their findings in the text of the judgment (see\u00a0Gankin and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos. 2430\/06\u00a0et al, \u00a7\u00a036, 31\u00a0May\u00a02016). If court documents are not duly served on a litigant, then he or she might be prevented from defending him or herself in the proceedings (see\u00a0Zavodnik v.\u00a0Slovenia, no.\u00a053723\/13, \u00a7\u00a070, 21\u00a0May 2015, with further references).<\/p>\n 8. In the leading cases of Lazarenko and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 70329\/12 and 5 others, 27 June 2017) and Strizhak v. Ukraine (no. 72269\/01, 8\u00a0November 2005), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 9. Having examined all the material submitted to it and lacking any evidence of proper notification of the applicant, 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 appeal lodged in the applicant\u2019s case without attempting to ascertain whether it had been served on the applicant or whether the applicant had been informed of the appeal by any other means, the domestic courts deprived the applicant of the opportunity to comment on the appeal lodged in her case and fell short of their obligation to respect the principle of equality of arms enshrined in Article\u00a06 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 11. The applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in the case set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Declares the application admissible;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the unfairness of the civil proceedings;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);<\/p>\n 4. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 December 2023, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits ____________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nFIFTH SECTION
\nCASE OF YAKOVLYEVA v. UKRAINE<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 50704\/15)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n14 December 2023<\/p>\n
\nKate\u0159ina \u0160im\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1,
\nMykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n
\nApplication raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention
\n(failure to notify the applicant of the other party\u2019s submissions or of a hearing)<\/p>\n