FIFTH SECTION    CASE OF MINAK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 19086/12 and 13 others -see appended list)        JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 7 February 2019      This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.  In the case of Minak and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Síofra O’Leary, President, Mārtiņš Mits, Lado Chanturia, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 17 January 2019,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.  Notice of the applications was given 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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.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.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION6.  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 ...”7.  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).8.  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).9.  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.10.  Having examined all the material submitted to it and lacking 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 failing to ensure that the appeals in the applicants’ cases had been served on them or that they had been informed of those appeals by 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.11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.III.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12.  The applicants in applications nos. 5661/13, 37725/13, 47510/13, 52889/13, 52121/14 and 35885/16 submitted other complaints which also raised issues under, inter alia, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court on the principle of legal certainty (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Ustimenko v. Ukraine (no. 2053/13, §§ 48-54, 29 October 2015) and Ponomaryov v. Ukraine (no. 3236/03, §§ 40-42, 43 and 47, 3 April 2008).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.  Declares the applications admissible; 3.  Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unfairness of the civil proceedings; 4.  Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court relating to the principle of legal certainty (see appended table); 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 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 7 February 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv Tigerstedt Síofra O’LearyActing Deputy Registrar President  APPENDIXList 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 applicableOther complaints under well-established case-lawAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant(in euros)[1]   19086/1221/03/2012Vyacheslav Oleksandrovych Minak11/08/195617/03/2011 Zhovtnevyy Local Court of Zaporizhzhya22/11/2011 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal  500   61663/1219/09/2012Mykhaylo Mykhaylovych Lukanov25/11/193928/03/2011 Zhovtnevyy Local Court of Dnipropetrovsk25/05/2012 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal  500   5661/1304/01/2013Olga Yakivna Zhytkova25/04/194923/12/2010 Obolonskyy Local Court of Kyiv22/08/2012 Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal  Art. 6 (1) - breach of the principle of legal certainty: The judgment of the Obolonskyy Local Court of Kyiv of 23/12/2010, final and enforceable as of 23/03/2011, was quashed by the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal on 22/08/2012 on the basis of the defendant’s appeal lodged outside the established time-limits 650   37725/1330/05/2013Fedir Pavlovych Kravchenko02/06/194528/07/2011 Tsentralnyy Local Court of Kryvyy Rig 16/11/2012 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal Art. 6 (1) - breach of the principle of legal certainty:The judgment of the Tsentralnyy Local Court of Kryvyy Rig of 28/07/2011, final and enforceable as of 09/08/2011, was quashed on 16/11/2012 by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal. The applicant has provided a copy of the defendant’s letter saying that the motion as regards extension of the time-limit for lodging the appeal was destroyed due to expiry of the period of storage (that is to say, motion for extension of the time-limit did exist). However, while launching the appellate proceedings on 04/10/2012 the appellate court remarked that the appeal had been lodged in time and did not rule on extension of the time-limit. Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions:deprivation of the opportunity to receive money which the applicant had legitimately expected to receive as the result of the quashing of the final judgments in his favour. 650   47510/1311/07/2013Nadiya Ivanivna Shepel11/05/195116/06/2011 Saksaganskyy Local Court of Kryvyy Rig28/02/2013 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal  Art. 6 (1) - breach of the principle of legal certainty:The judgment of the Saksaganskyy Local Court of Kryvyy Rig of 16/06/2011, which became final and enforceable, was quashed by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 28/02/2013 on the basis of the defendant’s appeal lodged on 04/07/2012 (i.e. outside the established time-limits).650   52889/1306/08/2013Valeriy Mykolayovych Nikolayev12/03/194304/07/2011 Babushkinskyy Local Court of Dnipropetrovsk 13/02/2013 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal  Art. 6 (1) - breach of the principle of legal certainty:The judgment of the Babushkinskyy Local Court of Dnipropetrovsk of 04/07/2011, final and enforceable as of 08/08/2011, was quashed by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 13/02/2013 on the basis of the defendant’s appeal lodged outside the established time-limits.650   65343/1303/10/2013Yevgeniy Romanovych Salatsinskyy01/01/195030/05/2011 Netyshyn Local Court of Khmelnytskyy Region28/05/2013 Vinnytsya Administrative Court of Appeal   500   12446/1407/03/2014Valentyna Mykolayivna Pokoyuk14/03/195129/04/2011 Dniprovskyy Local Court of Kyiv 29/11/2011 Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal   500   25139/1421/03/2014Volodymyr Vasylyovych Zherelyk02/08/195208/09/2011 Zhovtnevyy Local Court of Kryvyy Rig22/10/2013 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Cour of Appeal  500 52121/1410/07/2014Vira Grygorivna Petrova03/10/194929/07/2010 Svitlovodsk Local Court of Kirovohrad Region18/09/2013 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal Art. 6 (1) - breach of the principle of legal certainty:The judgment of the Svitlovodsk Local Court of Kirovohrad Region of 29/07/2010, was quashed by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 18/09/2013 on the basis of the defendant’s appeal lodged outside the established time limits, in October 2012.650 55013/1426/07/2014Mykhaylo Antonovych Dyachok02/09/194905/11/2010 Chortkiv Local Court of Ternopil Region 05/11/2011 Lviv Administrative Court of Appeal 19/05/2014   500 66752/1404/11/2014Oleksandr Leontiyovych Vereshchak15/09/194615/02/2011 Konotop Local Court of the Sumy Region 13/02/2012 Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal   500 78324/1426/02/2015Ganna Ivanivna Osadcha15/08/194614/03/2011 Konotop Court23/02/2012 Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal  500 35885/1614/06/2016Eleonora Sergiyivna Shyrmer07/06/195014/10/2011 Moskovskyy Local Court of Kharkiv 10/09/2012 Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal Art. 6 (1) - breach of the principle of legal certainty:The judgment of the Moskovskyi Local Court of Kharkiv of 14/10/2011, final and enforceable, was quashed by the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal on 10/09/2012 on the basis of the defendant’s appeal lodged outside the established time-limits. 650  [1].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.