Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 07.05.2009 «Дело Сивухин (Sivukhin) против России» [англ.]

n to doubt, that the letter of 1 February 2005 was, in fact, dispatched. However, the Government did not present any evidence, such as an acknowledgment of receipt card or an envelope bearing postmarks, showing that it had reached the applicant in good time and disproving the applicant's allegation that he had received the summons only on 3 February 2005. No such evidence had been found in the course of domestic review of this issue either (see paragraph 15 above). The Court also does not lose sight of the fact that the summons to the hearing of 2 February 2005 were sent to the applicant only one day in advance. In its view this is insufficient time for the letter to pass through the mail service and reach the applicant in such a way as to provide him with an opportunity to attend the hearing and prepare his case.
25. The Court reiterates that it has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Yakovlev v. Russia, No. 72701/01, § 19 et seq., 15 March 2005; Groshev v. Russia, No. 69889/01, § 27 et seq., 20 October 2005; and Subbotkin v. Russia, No. 837/03, § 18 et seq., 12 June 2008).
26. Having examined the materials submitted to it, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. With respect to the Government's submission that the applicant was heard by the appeal court on 6 April 2005, the Court notes that in these proceedings the appeal court merely examined the question whether the belated summons of the applicant could be a sufficient ground to reopen the appeal hearing, and did not decide on the merits of his appeal. The Court has thus established that owing to improper notification the applicant was deprived of an opportunity to attend the appeal hearing in his case.
27. It follows that there was a violation of the applicant's right to a fair hearing enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

II. Other alleged violations of the Convention

28. The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that that the proceedings in his case had been excessively long and unfair. He also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in this respect.
29. Having regard to all the material in its possession and in so far as the complaints fall 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. It follows that his part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

30. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

A. Damage

31. The applicant claimed 100,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
32. The Government contested his claim as excessive and unreasonable. They considered that a finding of a violation would be adequate just satisfaction in the applicant's case.
33. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged. On the other hand, the Court finds that the applicant must have suffered frustration and a feeling of injustice as a result of the domestic authorities' failure to apprise him of the appeal hearing in good time. Having regard to the nature of the violation found and making its assessment on an equi

> 1 2 3 4