tis mutandis, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, No. 68416/01, § 67, ECHR 2005-II). Thus, in the Court's opinion, the principle of the equality of arms, requiring a fair balance between the parties, was respected in the present case.
28. There has accordingly been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention as regards the hearing on 16 August 2001
29. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see above) that she had not been informed of the appeal hearing on 16 August 2001.
A. Admissibility
30. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It also notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
31. The Government argued that the applicant had been informed of the appeal hearing. However, they were unable to produce any evidence since the relevant registers had been destroyed after the expiry of the three-year retention period, pursuant to an Instruction on case processing in district courts.
32. The applicant submitted that the Government should have relied on Instruction No. 8 issued by the Judiciary Department of the Supreme Court of Russia in 1999 (see paragraph 14 above). According to that Instruction, there was no requirement for registering acknowledgment-of-receipt cards for summons; the cards were to be handed over to the court registrar for filing into the relevant case file. Under another instruction, the storage period for case files in civil cases amounted to fifteen years (ibid.)
33. The Court notes that the Government submitted no proof for their argument that the applicant had been notified of the appeal hearing. Neither did they specify the legal basis for the alleged destruction of the relevant registers or produce a certificate confirming the act of destruction after the expiry of the three-year period. Even accepting that the Instructions referred to by the applicant were applicable in his case, the Court cannot discern what storage period applied. It has not been shown that the Government exhausted all reasonable possibilities to adduce the relevant evidence. Lastly, it does not follow from the text of the appeal judgment that the appeal court verified whether the applicant had been effectively informed of the appeal hearing.
34. The Court 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; Mokrushina v. Russia, No. 23377/02, § 20 et seq., 5 October 2006; Prokopenko v. Russia, No. 8630/03, § 17 et seq., 3 May 2007; Subbotkin v. Russia, No. 837/03, § 18 et seq., 12 June 2008, and Litvinova v. Russia, No. 34489/05, § 16 et seq., 14 November 2008).
35. Having examined the materials submitted to it, the Court concludes that the applicant was not afforded an opportunity to attend the appeal hearing and plead her case in adversarial proceedings.
36. It follows that there has been a violation of the applicant's right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. Other alleged violations of the Convention
37. The applicant also complained under Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention that the courts had incorrectly determined the merits of her counterclaim, that the lay judges had been appointed in violation of Russian law, and that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. Lastly, she alleged under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that by bringing his claim against the applicant, the prosecutor had unlawfull
> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 20 ... 21
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
