CASE OF GANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova
4. The applicant, Mr Vladislav Andreyevich Gankin, was born in 1954 and lives in Volzhskiy, the Volgograd Region. 5. In May 2006 the applicant lodged a civil claim seeking to recover excess service fees paid. On 3 October 2007 the Volzhskiy Town Court of the Volgograd Region heard the case in the applicant’s presence and rejected his claim. The applicant appealed to the Volgograd Regional Court. The Government stated that on 9 November 2007 a judicial summons was sent to the applicant by mail. The applicant did not receive it. 6. On 29 November 2007 the Volgograd Regional Court upheld the judgment of the Town Court in the applicant’s absence, without addressing the issue of whether he had been notified. 7. The applicant, Ms Olga Ivanovna Shevchenok, was born in 1958 and lives in Tyumen. 8. In January 2007 the applicant brought a defamation action against a third party. On 6 March 2007 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Tyumen dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant was present and pleaded her case in person. On 18 March 2007 she lodged a statement of appeal, in which she indicated her post-office box number. The Government stated that on 12 April 2007 a judicial summons was sent to the applicant’s postoffice box. She claimed she had not received it. 9. On 2 May 2007 the Tyumen Regional Court examined and dismissed the applicant’s appeal in her absence, without examining the issue of whether she had been notified. 10. The applicant, Mr Aleksey Dmitriyevich Belkin, was born in 1952 and lives in Neya, the Kostroma Region. 11. In April 2009 he lodged a civil claim against traffic police, seeking to obtain a copy of a vehicle registration certificate. On 19 May 2009 the Neyskiy District Court of the Kostroma Region examined the case in the applicant’s presence and satisfied his claim in part. Both parties appealed against the judgment. The Government stated that on 10 August 2009 the Kostroma Regional Court had sent a judicial summons to the applicant by regular mail and had also called the telephone number listed in his statement of claim. He claimed he had not received the summons or the telephone call. 12. On 19 August 2009 the Kostroma Regional Court quashed the District Court’s judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim in his absence, without examining the issue of whether he had been notified. 13. The applicant, Mr Mikhail Viktorovich Kiryushkin, was born in 1975 and lives in Yekaterinburg. 14. The applicant brought a civil action against his employer for wrongful dismissal. On 1 September 2011 the Kirovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg heard the case in the applicant’s presence and refused his claim. On 15 September 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Sverdlovsk Regional Court. The Government stated that on 12 October 2011 the Regional Court sent a judicial summons to the applicant by registered mail. Three postal notices were then sent to the applicant inviting him to pick up the letter from the post office: on 18 and 24 October and 7 November 2011. According to the applicant he received the postal notice only on 11 November 2011. 15. On 1 November 2011 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal claim in his absence and did not examine the issue of whether he had been notified.