FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA - 38092/05 (Communicated Case)

After receiving a copy of the judgment of 18 October 2004 the applicant appealed against it requesting that the judgment be set aside and a fresh examination of the case be ordered, that his representative Mr O. be summoned to the hearing and asked for leave to appear in person before the appeal court. The appeal was rejected as time-barred and the applicant asked for restoration of the relevant time-limit on the ground that he had received the judgment with a delay.

On 27 June 2005 the Kstov Town Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region examined the case on appeal. The claimant and the applicant or his representative were not present. The Town Court noted that Article 19 � 2 of the Family Code provided for administrative dissolution of marriage by the local register office if one�s spouse was sentenced to more than three years� imprisonment for committing a crime regardless of the latter�s consent and without his or her participation. It dismissed the applicant�s appeal and, in particular, his complaint about the examination of the case by the first-instance court in his absence. It upheld the judgment of the Justice of the Peace.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 � 1 of the Convention that the Justice of the Peace examined the case in his absence. He also complains that he was deprived of a right to appeal against the judgment.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 � 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings, as well as the right to be present at the hearing, respected as regards the examination of the case by the Justice of the Peace without the applicant�s participation?

2.  According to the court records of the hearing before the Justice of the Peace on 18 October 2004 and the judgment of that date, the applicant was apprised of the hearing in due time. On the basis of what documents such a conclusion was made? When was the judgment of 18 October 2004 served on the applicant? Did the Kstov Town Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region rule on the applicant�s requests for leave to appear in person before the appeal court and for summoning his representative Mr O. to the appeal hearing? The Government are requested to submit the relevant documents in answering the above questions.