FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF PECHENIZKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 63510/11 and 18 others -see appended list)       JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG 8 November 2018   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Pechenizkyy and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Yonko Grozev, President, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 11 October 2018,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1.  The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.2.  The applications were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”).THE FACTS3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.4.  The applicants complained that they were deprived of an opportunity to comment on the appeals lodged by the defendants in their cases.THE LAWI.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.II.  THE LOCUS STANDI OF MS TAMARA PAVLIVNA KALASHNIKOVA6.  As concerns the complaints raised by the applicant in application no. 39965/13, the Court notes that the applicant died on 18 January 2018, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s wife, Ms Tamara Pavlivna Kalashnikova, has requested to pursue the application on her husband’s behalf. As the request is in line with its case-law, the Court sees no reason to refuse it (see, among other authorities, Benyaminson v. Ukraine, no. 31585/02, § 83, 26 July 2007; Petr Korolev v. Russia, no. 38112/04, §§ 43-45, 21 October 2010; Sergey Denisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 1985/05 and 4 others, §§ 73-75, 19 April 2016; and Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, §§ 25-27, 17 May 2005). However, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the present text.III.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION7.  The applicants complained that the principle of equality of arms had been breached on account of the domestic courts’ failure to serve appeals on them or otherwise inform them of the appeals lodged in their cases. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:Article 6 § 1“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”8.  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).9.  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).10.  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.11.  Having examined all the material submitted to it and lacking any evidence of proper notification of the applicants, 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 appeals lodged in the applicants’ cases without attempting to ascertain whether they were served on the applicants or whether the applicants were informed of the appeals by any other means, the domestic courts deprived the applicants of the opportunity to comment on the appeals lodged in their cases and fell short of their obligation to respect the principle of equality of arms enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention.12.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.15.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,1.  Decides to join the applications; 2.  Decides that Ms Kalashnikova, the wife of the applicant in application no. 39965/13, has locus standi in the proceedings; 3.  Declares the applications admissible; 4.  Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unfairness of the civil proceedings; 5.  Holds(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 November 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv Tigerstedt Yonko GrozevActing Deputy Registrar PresidentAPPENDIXList of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention(lack of opportunity to comment on the appeal)No.Application no.Date of introductionApplicant’s nameDate of birth Date of the First instance court decisionDate of the Court of appeal decisionDate of the Higher Administrative Court (“HAC”) ruling on appeal on points of law, if applicableAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]   63510/1130/09/2011Sergiy Mykolayovych Pechenizkyy06/04/196328/02/2011 Velykoburluk Local Court of Kharkiv Region15/04/2011 Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal 500   35026/1224/05/2012Fedir Ivanovych Kotlenko13/06/194627/01/2011 Krasnogvardiyskyy Local Court of Dnipropetrovsk 16/01/2012 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal  500   48019/1219/07/2012Valentyna Ivanivna Gryb08/07/195120/05/2011 Samarskyi Local Court of Dnipropetrovsk28/05/2012 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal 500   65722/1205/10/2012Leonid Oleksiyovych Petrov16/06/195126/05/2011 Amur-Nyzhniodniprovskyy Local Court of Dnipropetrovsk27/02/2012 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal  500   71273/1219/10/2012Nataliya Oleksandrivna Kazakova20/03/195420/07/2011 Leninskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk24/05/2012 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal 500   74771/1212/11/2012Viktor Petrovych Levachov26/07/194617/06/2011 Leninskyy Local Court of Dnipropetrovsk 14/06/2012 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal  500   21094/1316/03/2013Nina Leonidivna Malenko24/07/195106/05/2011 Konotop Local Court of Sumy Region28/09/2012 Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal04/01/2013500   24346/1329/03/2013Galina Nikolayevna Noskova15/08/194629/07/2011 Leninskyy Local Court of Sevastopol 16/02/2012 Sevastopol Administrative Court of Appeal 500   29598/1323/04/2013Tetyana Valentynivna Glembotska08/01/194922/02/2011 Babushkinskyi Local Court of Dnipropetrovsk16/07/2012 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal 500 34757/1322/05/2013Lyubov Logvinivna Kermas06/05/194715/08/2011 Kirovskyy Local Court of Dnipropetrovsk 27/06/2012 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal  500 37671/1331/05/2013Nina Afanasiyivna Khyzhnyak23/08/195310/06/2011 Amur-Nyzhnyodniprovskyy Local Court of Dnipropetrovsk24/01/2013 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal 500 39965/1311/06/2013Viktor Ivanovich Romadanovskiy30/03/1939 The applicant died on 18/01/2018. His wife, Tamara Pavlivna Kalashnikova, has the quality of heir.26/07/2011 Kyivskyy Local Court of Odesa05/09/2012 Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal18/12/2012500 47881/1318/07/2013Pavlo Semenovych Kavun27/07/195317/06/2011 Leninskyy Local Court of Dnipropetrovsk 15/02/2013 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal  500 52206/1308/08/2013Viktor Volodymyrovych Tymofiyev03/12/194903/10/2011 Zhovtnevyi Local Court of Kryvyi Rih21/12/2012 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal  500 55129/1317/08/2013Sergiy Grygorovych Lobanov18/08/194902/09/2011 Shevchenkivskyy Local Court of Kyiv11/10/2012 Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal 500 63197/1326/09/2013Oleksandr Georgiyovych Masiyan20/08/194826/05/2011 Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Chernivtsi27/03/2013 Vinnytsya Administrative Court of Appeal 500 66585/1315/10/2013Lyubov Mykhaylivna Savelyeva10/08/195120/06/2011 Krasnogvardiysk Local Court of Dnipropetrovsk 29/10/2012 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal 500 70813/1331/10/2013Volodymyr Dmytriyovych Bogoslavskyy13/09/194805/08/2011 Leninskyi Local Court of Dnipropetrovsk15/11/2012 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal 500 79383/1327/11/2013Volodymyr Ivanovych Dzyadukh27/08/193929/04/2011 Khmelnytskyi Local Court05/06/2013 Vinnytsya Administrative Court of Appeal13/08/2013500  [1].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.