Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 04.03.2010 «Дело Толстобров (Tolstobrov) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF TOLSTOBROV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 11612/05)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 4.III.2010)

--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Tolstobrov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina {Vajic} <*>,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 February 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 11612/05) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Vladimir Pavlovich Tolstobrov ("the applicant"), on 11 March 2005.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr I. Telyatyev, a lawyer practising in Arkhangelsk. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 9 November 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

4. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Arkhangelsk.
5. The applicant sued a private company for salary arrears.
6. By judgment of 16 March 2004, the Justice of Peace in the Varavino-Faktoriya Circuit awarded the applicant 92,073.93 Russian roubles (RUB) against the defendant company.
7. The defendant company appealed.
8. On 16 June 2004, both parties being present in the court-room, the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk adjourned the hearing until 13 July 2004, which was noted in the minutes. The parties were also notified about the hearing of 13 July 2004 by post, in accordance with the domestic law. However, the court made a mistake in the defendant company's address, which never received the summons.
9. On 13 July 2004 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, in the absence of the defendant company's representative, upheld the judgment on appeal.
10. The defendant company applied for supervisory review of the above judgments. On 21 September 2004 a judge in the Arkhangelsk Regional Court granted it leave for supervisory review. On 29 September 2004 the Presidium of the Regional Court set aside the judgment of 13 July 2004 and ordered a re-examination of the case by the District Court on the grounds that the defendant company had not been informed about the hearing of 13 July 2004. The Presidium found that though the defendant company's representative was present in the court-room when the district court adjourned the hearing to 13 July 2004, the defendant company could not be considered as duly informed about it.
11. On 26 January 2005 the District Court quashed the judgment of 16 March 2004 and awarded the applicant RUB 38,123.85.

II. Relevant domestic law

> 1 2 3