FIFTH SECTION    CASE OF BILA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 36245/12 and 10 others -see appended list)       JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 20 December 2018      This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bila 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 29 November 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.  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 they were deprived of an opportunity to comment on the appeals lodged by the defendants in their cases. Some applicants also raised another complaint under Article 6 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.  THE LOCUS STANDI OF MS GALYNA GRYGORIVNA TOVSTOKOR6.  As concerns the complaints raised by the applicant in application no. 17387/14, the Court notes that he died on 11 June 2015, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s wife, Ms Galyna Grygorivna Tovstokor, 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.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW13.  The applicants in applications nos. 15850/13, 24909/13 and 17387/14 submitted another complaint under Article 6 of the Convention which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court on the principle of legal certainty (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation 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).V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14.  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.”15.  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.16.  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 Tovstokor, the wife of the applicant in application no. 17387/14, 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 that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the other complaint raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); 6.  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 20 December 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv Tigerstedt Síofra O’LearyActing 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 Representative’s name and locationDate of the First instance court decisionDate of the Court of appeal decisionOther complaints under well-established case-lawAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]   36245/1201/06/2012Antonina Yakymivna Bila04/04/1951  29/06/2011 Samarskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk01/03/2012 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal 500   15850/1314/02/2013Petro Yegorovych Gavrylov09/08/1938  31/03/2009 Oleksandriya Local Court of Kirovograd Region26/01/2012 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of AppealArt. 6 (1) - breach of the principle of legal certainty: The judgment of the Oleksandriya Local Court of Kirovohrad Region of 31/03/2009, final and enforceable as of 19/06/2009, was quashed by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 26/01/2012 on the basis of the defendant’s appeal lodged outside the established time limits. 650   24909/1303/04/2013Lidiya Pavlivna Kamenna20/10/1937  22/02/2011 Babushkinskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk01/10/2012 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal Art. 6 (1) - breach of the principle of legal certainty: On 01/10/2012 the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal quashed the final judgment of the Babushkinskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk of 22/02/2011 under which the applicant’s social benefits were recalculated. The applicant learned about the judgment of the court of appeal in February 2013 from the letter of the Pension Fund informing her about the forthcoming recalculation of her pension. 650   42389/1320/06/2013Valentyna Grygorivna Sharyk20/01/1955  24/06/2011 Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rih06/12/2012 Dnipropetrovskyy Administrative Court of Appeal 500   50700/1302/08/2013Fedir Ivanovych Nimyy24/05/1949  27/05/2011 Zhovtnevyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk25/03/2013 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal  500   68994/1325/10/2013Lyudmyla Anatoliyivna Nestychenko16/03/1956  30/12/2010 Desnyanskyy District Court of Chernihiv27/03/2012 Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal 500   17387/1418/02/2014Mykola Ivanovych Tovstokor21/05/1953 The applicant died on 11/06/2015. His wife, Galyna Grygorivna Tovstokor, has the quality of heir.Nataliya Vitaliyivna GubskaZaporizhzhya29/11/2010 Khortytskyy District Court of Zaporizhzhya15/10/2013 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal Art. 6 (1) - breach of the principle of legal certainty: The judgment of the Khortytskyy District Court of Zaporizhzhya of 29/11/2010, final and enforceable as of 10/12/2010, was quashed by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 15/10/2013 on the basis of the defendant’s appeal lodged outside of the established time limits.650   29138/1403/04/2014Lyubov Volodymyrivna Semernya26/12/1947  24/05/2011 Saksahanskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rih 18/09/2013 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal 500   58263/1416/08/2014Larysa Stanislavivna Bulka26/01/1954  12/04/2011 Saksahanskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rih30/04/2013 Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal 500 32249/1526/06/2015Lyubov Petrivna Samsonik13/10/1951  04/03/2011 Volodymyr-Volynskyy Town Court of Volyn Region28/02/2013 Lviv Administrative Court of Appeal  500 50232/1730/06/2017Vitaliy Petrovych Zubko04/08/1963  06/09/2011 Brovary Local Court of Kyiv Region11/10/2012 Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal 500  [1].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.