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

oceedings.
14. On 18 March 1998 the Krasnogorsk Town Court examined the merits of the applicant's claim and dismissed it. The judgment was given in the applicant's absence, and she learned of it from other plaintiffs on 28 May 1998, that is, after the procedural time-limit for appealing had already expired.
15. On 8 October 1998 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment of 18 March 1998 in respect of all the plaintiffs except the applicant.
16. The applicant applied for the restoration of the procedural time-limit for appeal against the judgment of 18 March 1998, and on 15 February 1999 her request was granted.
17. On 28 April 1999 the Moscow Regional Court quashed the judgment of 18 March 1998 in respect of the applicant because it had been given in her absence.
18. On 16 June 1999 the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court quashed the appeal decision of 8 October 1998 by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh examination.
19. On 2 August 1999 the case in respect of all the plaintiffs, including the applicant, was submitted to the Krasnogorsk Town Court.

B. Second examination of the case

20. On 5 October 1999 the hearing was adjourned until an unspecified date because the applicant had failed to appear.
21. On 15 November 1999 the proceedings were suspended until an unspecified date because the defendant's representative was ill.
22. Following a complaint by the applicant, on 10 April 2000 the proceedings were resumed, and a hearing was scheduled for 5 May 2000.
23. On 5 May 2000 the Krasnogorsk Town Court again dismissed the applicant's claims. On 4 June 2000 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
24. Following a request filed by the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Russia on behalf of the applicant and other plaintiffs, on 25 July 2001 the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court quashed the judgment of 5 May 2000, as upheld on 4 June 2000, by way of supervisory review, and remitted the case for fresh examination.
25. The case file was remitted to the Krasnogorskiy Town Court on 9 August 2001.

C. Third examination of the case

26. During the period between 23 April and 30 September 2002 hearings were adjourned on four occasions owing to the defendant's failure to appear before the court.
27. On 30 September 2002 a hearing was adjourned until 24 October 2002, on the court's initiative, in view of the necessity to obtain certain documents.
28. On 24 October 2002 the hearing was adjourned until 22 November 2002, on the request of the defendant, for friendly-settlement negotiations.
29. On 19 November 2002 the applicant asked the court to attach the defendant's property as a security measure.
30. Following a request by the applicant, on 22 November 2002 the applicant's case was disjoined from the cases lodged by the other plaintiffs. The hearing was adjourned until 27 March 2003.
31. On 27 March 2003 the applicant amended her claims. The hearing was adjourned until 3 June 2003 because of the necessity to obtain certain documents and because of a further amendment to the applicant's claims.
32. In the period between 3 June and 21 October 2003, and between 21 December 2003 and 15 March 2004 hearings were adjourned on four occasions because the defendant had failed to appear before the court.
33. On 20 August 2004 the Krasnogorsk Town Court refused to entertain the applicant's action in view of her failure to appear at the hearings of 23 July and 20 August 2004.
34. Following an appeal by the applicant, on 26 April 2005 the Krasnogorsk Town Court quashed its decision of 20 August 2004, because there was no information in the case file recording that the applicant had

> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7