Source: https://www.lawmix.ru/abro/10973
Timestamp: 2017-08-19 03:48:29
Document Index: 241131409

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 66', '§ 58', '§ 1', '§ 20', '§ 1', '§ 1']

ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ Европейского суда по правам человека от 20.10.2005
Главная > Архивные документы: Международное законодательство > ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ Европейского суда по правам человека от 20.10.2005<ДЕЛО ГРОШЕВ (groshev)...
ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ Европейского суда по правам человека от 20.10.2005<ДЕЛО ГРОШЕВ (groshev) ПРОТИВ РОССИИ> [англ.]
(Strasbourg, 20.X.2005)
1. The case originated in an application (No. 69889/01) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Mr Yuriy Vasilyevich Groshev, on 31 January 2001.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by their Agent, Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
6. In February 1999 the applicant brought an action against the Moscow Region health department, seeking to declare invalid some data in his medical records. The disputed information related to the applicant"s degree of disability and affected his pension entitlement and fitness for work.
7. On 1 September 1999 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant"s claims.
9. On 20 March 2000 the applicant was admitted to a hospital for inpatient treatment. On 27 March 2000 his acquaintance asked the Moscow City Court, by a telegram sent on the applicant"s behalf, for an adjournment of the hearing. The Government denied that the telegram had been sent.
11. On 30 March 2000 the Moscow City Court mailed to the applicant a new summons for the hearing listed for 4 April. According to the postmark, it reached the applicant"s address on 5 April.
20. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to introduce the application before 4 October 2000, that is within six months after the final judgment had been made. Even assuming that he only took cognisance of the City Court"s decision on 31 August 2000, he still had more than a month to lodge the application. In any event, the failure to take cognisance of the City Court"s decision is entirely attributable to the applicant"s own conduct. He left the hospital on 7 April 2000 but made no inquiries about the contents of the decision until August 2000.
23. The Court notes that the date of delivery of the complete text of the appeal judgment was to be determined at the appeal hearing (see paragraph 18 above). The Government did not indicate the date that had been fixed as the delivery date. Nor did they claim that a copy of the appeal judgment had been served on the applicant before 31 August 2000 or that it had been available for inspection at the registry on an earlier date. The Court accepts therefore that the applicant first obtained the appeal judgment of the Moscow City Court on 31 August 2000. As he lodged the application with the Court within six months of that date, the application was introduced in time. For these reasons, the Court dismisses the Government"s objection.
25. The Government claimed that the applicant"s points of appeal had not contained any information that could have led to the quashing of the first-instance judgment. The applicant"s presence was not indispensable as the appeal court could decide on the basis of the case-file and his written submissions.
27. The Court reiterates that the obligation under Article 6 § 1 to hold a public hearing is not an absolute one. Thus, a hearing may be dispensed with if a party unequivocally waives his or her right thereto and there are no questions of public interest making a hearing necessary. A waiver can be done explicitly or tacitly, in the latter case for example by refraining from submitting or maintaining a request for a hearing (see, among other authorities, {Hakansson} and Sturesson v. Sweden, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A No. 171-A, § 66; and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A No. 263, § 58).
28. The Court observes that at the material time the Russian rules of civil procedure provided for an oral hearing before the appeal court. However, the parties" attendance was not mandatory and, if a party did not appear at the hearing without a valid reason after it had been duly notified thereof, the court could proceed with the examination of the appeal. The Court considers that these provisions were not, in themselves, incompatible with the fair trial guarantees of Article 6 § 1 (see Yakovlev v. Russia, No. 72701/01, § 20, 15 March 2005).
31. It follows that there was a violation of the applicant"s right to a fair hearing enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
33. The Court recalls that the observance of domestic time-limits is only one of the aspects for its assessment of compliance with the "reasonable time" requirement of Article 6 § 1. In the present case the global duration of the proceedings, which lasted one year and six months, cannot be said to have exceeded a "reasonable time". As to the complaint concerning the assessment of evidence, the Court reiterates that Article 6 does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts. Having regard to the facts, as submitted by the applicant, the Court finds no appearance of a violation of that provision.
1. Declares the complaint concerning the domestic authorities" failure to apprise the applicant of the appeal hearing in good time, admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
"СОГЛАШЕНИЕ О СОЗДАНИИ РЕЗЕРВОВ РЕСУРСОВ И ИХ ЭФФЕКТИВНОМ ИСПОЛЬЗОВАНИИ ДЛЯ ОБЕСПЕЧЕНИЯ УСТОЙЧИВОЙ ПАРАЛЛЕЛЬНОЙ РАБОТЫ ЭЛЕКТРОЭНЕРГЕТИЧЕСКИХ СИСТЕМ ГОСУДАРСТВ-УЧАСТНИКОВ СОДРУЖЕСТВА НЕЗАВИСИМЫХ ГОСУДАРСТВ"(Заключено в г. Астане 15.09.2004) »