FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF BUDVEST, TOV v. UKRAINE(Application no. 59487/21)     JUDGMENT STRASBOURG19 October 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Budvest, TOV v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Carlo Ranzoni, President, Lado Chanturia, María Elósegui, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 28 September 2023,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 19 November 2021.2. The applicant was represented by Mr V.I. Yamkovyy, a lawyer practising in Kryvyy Rig, Ukraine.3. Notice of the application was given to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”).THE FACTS4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.THE LAWALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION5. The applicant company complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the principle of equality of arms had been breached on account of the domestic courts’ failure to serve the appeal on it or otherwise inform it of the appeal lodged in the case.6. The Court reiterates that the general concept of a fair trial, encompassing the fundamental principle that proceedings should be adversarial (see Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, 23 June 1993, § 63, Series A no. 262), requires that the person against whom proceedings have been initiated should be informed of this fact (see Dilipak and Karakaya v. Turkey, nos. 7942/05 and 24838/05, § 77, 4 March 2014). The principle of equality of arms requires that each party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case under conditions that do not place him or her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his or her opponent (see Avotiņš v. Latvia [GC], no. 17502/07, § 119, ECHR 2016, and Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274). Each party must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed or evidence adduced by the other party, including the other party’s appeal. What is at stake is the litigants’ confidence in the workings of justice, which is based on, inter alia, the knowledge that they have had the opportunity to express their views on every document in the file (see Beer v. Austria, no. 30428/96, §§ 17‑18, 6 February 2001).7. It may, therefore, be incumbent on the domestic courts to ascertain that their summonses or other documents have reached the parties sufficiently in advance and, where appropriate, record their findings in the text of the judgment (see Gankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 2430/06 et al, § 36, 31 May 2016). If court documents are not duly served on a litigant, then he or she might be prevented from defending him or herself in the proceedings (see Zavodnik v. Slovenia, no. 53723/13, § 70, 21 May 2015, with further references).8. In the leading case of Lazarenko and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 70329/12 and 5 others, 27 June 2017), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.9. Having examined all the material submitted to it and lacking any evidence of proper notification of the applicant, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case‑law on the subject, the Court finds that by proceeding to consider the appeal lodged in the applicant’s case without attempting to ascertain whether it was served on the applicant or whether the applicant was informed of the appeal by any other means, the domestic courts deprived the applicant of the opportunity to comment on the appeal lodged in the case and fell short of their obligation to respect the principle of equality of arms enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention.10.

Outcome for Article 6: violation