mons.
9. On 17 January 2005 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court examined the appeal and rejected it. The applicant and the representative of the Health Department were absent but the prosecutor intervened in the proceedings on behalf of the Health Department and addressed the court. The Regional Court did not examine the question whether the applicant or her representative had been duly summonsed and, if they had not, whether the examination of the appeal should have been adjourned.
II. Relevant domestic law
10. The Code of Civil Procedure (in force as of 1 February 2003) provides that parties to the proceedings are to be summonsed to a court by registered mail with a confirmation of receipt, by a phone call or a telegram, by fax or by any other means which will secure delivery of the summons to the addressee. Summonses must be served on the parties in such a way that they have enough time to prepare their case and appear at the hearing (Article 113).
11. Summonses are to be sent by mail or by a court courier. The time when a summons is served on the addressee is to be recorded on a document which must be returned to the court by courier or by any other method used by the postal service. A judge may request a party to the proceedings to transmit a summons to another party. In that case, that person should bring to the court an acknowledgment of receipt (Article 115).
12. A summons is to be served on a person against his or her signature, on its copy, which is to be returned to the court (Article 116).
13. A civil case is to be heard in a court session with mandatory notification of all parties of the place and time of the court session (Article 155).
14. If a party to the case fails to appear at the hearing and there is no evidence that the party has been duly summonsed, the hearing is to be adjourned (Article 167).
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
15. The applicant complained that she had not been afforded an opportunity to attend the appeal hearing in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations... everyone is entitled to a... hearing within a reasonable time by [a]... tribunal..."
A. Admissibility
16. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available to her. She did not apply for a supervisory review of the judgment of 17 January 2005 rendered in her absence.
17. In this connection, the Court reiterates that an application for supervisory review is not a remedy to be used for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Denisov v. Russia (dec.), No. 33408/03, 6 May 2004). Therefore, the Government's objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed.
18. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
19. The Government claimed that the applicant, like all the parties to the proceedings, had been duly notified of the date and time of the appeal hearing. In support of their submissions, they provided the Court with a copy of the summons dated 29 December 2004 and addressed, inter alia, to the applicant and her representative. The Government further reasoned that the failure of the applicant and her representative to appear in court had not precluded consideration of the matter by the appeal court. The applicant's case had not been complex and the appeal court had duly considered the case on the basis of the materials in the case file and the applicant's writ
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 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
