nce in civil cases could be provided to certain categories of litigants and for certain categories of disputes such as labour disputes, disputes concerning disability pensions, work-related accidents, etc. (sections 11 and 22 respectively). Disputes involving prisoners similar to the one at the heart of the present case were not mentioned amongst them. However, the law stipulated that free legal assistance could be provided for litigants who had no means to pay for it, on the initiative of the advocate's office, the investigator or the court (section 11 (3) of the USSR Advocates Act). If free legal assistance was granted by the court, the lawyers' fees had to be paid by the State.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
27. The applicant complained that he had been unable to present his civil case on an equitable basis {vis-a-vis} the opposite party, Mr O. The applicant referred in this respect to Article 6 § 1, which reads as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."
A. The parties' submissions
28. The Government alleged that the applicant's right to a fair hearing of his civil case had not been breached. They admitted that there had been a delay in sending the notification from the Gusevskiy Town Court. However, the delay was caused by the applicant's transferral to the correctional colony. The State cannot be held responsible for the work of the postal service. They referred to the cases of Foley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 39197/98, 11 September 2001, and Zagorodnikov v. Russia, No. 66941/01 7 June 2001.
29. Furthermore, the applicant had been duly informed of all subsequent hearings, where he could have submitted his written observations. Pursuant to Article 213 of the Code of Civil Procedure <*>, a default judgment can be quashed if two conditions are met: (a) the absent party was unable, with good reason, to attend the hearing or to inform the court thereof, and (b) the absent party is able to present new materials which could affect the outcome of the case. The applicant's request did not contain any information that could have led to the reopening of the case. As a result, he was in no way placed in an unfavourable position {vis-a-vis} the plaintiff, Mr O.
--------------------------------
<*> The Government seemed to refer to the old RSFSR code, in force at the material time.
30. The Government further maintained that the facts of the case had been established by the judgment of 6 April 2001 in the applicant's criminal case. It had been established that the applicant had paid for the car bought from Mr. O with counterfeit United States dollars. In its judgment of 10 October 2002 the Kaliningrad Regional Court noted that the facts established in the judgment of 6 April 2001 within the criminal proceedings against the applicant had the force of res judicata for the purposes of civil proceedings concerning damage caused to the victim of the applicant's crime. In his appeal against the default judgment of 11 July 2001, the applicant had simply cast doubt on the findings of the trial court; he had not adduced any new arguments relevant for the analysis of the civil-law aspects of the situation.
31. The Government also argued that the question of the applicant's absence from the hearing of 11 July 2001 had been examined twice - on 6 September 2001, by the same court, and on 10 October 2002 by the Kaliningrad Regional Court. Both instances concluded that the applicant's presence had not been necessary and examined his written submissions. In the Government's opinion, that subsequent measure had remedied the defects of the original hearing of 11 July 2001.
32. The Gove
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 7 8 9
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
