, ("the applicant company"), on 1 March 2005.
2. The applicant company was represented by Mr A.V. Kiryanov and Mrs E.V. Kiryanova, lawyers practising in Taganrog. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev and Mrs V. Milinchuk, the former representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 20 November 2006 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3).
4. On 3 December 2009 the Chamber decided that in the interests of the proper administration of justice, the proceedings in the present case should be conducted simultaneously with those in the cases of Gorovaya v. Russia and Makarova v. Russia (applications Nos. 20882/04 and 20886/04) (Rule 42).
THE FACTS
I. The circumstances of the case
5. On 31 July 1998 the applicant company, together with three other plaintiffs, Mr Kesyan, Ms Gorovaya and Ms Makarova, all represented by the same lawyer, filed an action against the Rostov Regional Department of the Federal Treasury and Mrs O. seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage on account of the unlawful seizure of goods.
A. First round of court proceedings
6. The first hearing was scheduled for 22 September 1998 but was adjourned owing to the judge's leave. The following hearing on 28 December 1998 did not take place owing to the defendants' failure to appear in court.
7. On 11 February 1999, at the plaintiffs' request, the District Court ordered an expert examination and stayed the proceedings.
8. In September 1999 the experts' report was received. In October and November 1999 the applicant company's representative amended the claims.
9. On 25 November 1999 the court proceedings were resumed.
10. Between 25 November 1999 and 3 October 2000 the District Court listed eight hearings, of which three were adjourned because the defendants failed to attend and five because none of the parties attended.
11. By a decision of 3 October 2000, the District Court declined to examine the applicant company's claims on the merits on the ground of its repeated failure to appear in court.
12. On 9 July 2001 the applicant company's representative requested that the decision of 3 October 2000 be set aside for the reason that neither he, nor the applicant company had been duly notified of the hearings. By a decision of 12 July 2001, the District Court allowed the request and resumed the proceedings.
13. By a decision of 5 September 2001, the District Court invited the Taganrog Custom Service to join the civil proceedings as a third party.
14. At the third party's request of 10 October 2001, the proceedings were stayed because a related administrative case was pending before another court. On 30 September 2002 they were resumed.
15. Between 30 September and 20 December 2002, three hearings were adjourned because the parties failed to attend.
16. On 20 December 2002 the District Court declined to examine the applicant company's claims on the merits on the ground of its repeated failure to appear in court.
17. The proceedings were resumed on 23 January 2004, at the request of the applicant company's representative of 19 January 2004, for the reason that neither he, nor the applicant company had been properly summoned to the hearings.
18. Of ten hearings listed between 20 February and 16 November 2004, four hearings were adjourned owing to Mrs O.'s absence, two owing to the parties' absence, one at the applicant company's representative's request and two because the presiding judge was on leave.<
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 9 ... 10 11
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
