Верховный суд Литвы
6 мая 2009 года
Facts
The prosecutor, acting in the public interest, brought an action in the interests of the State Tax Inspectorate, requesting an extension of the time limit for the submission of creditors' claims to the heirs, claiming a large amount of money and the cost of the proceedings.
Complaint
The applicants' request was based, inter alia, on the grounds of inadequate information. The applicant does not live in Lithuania and the authorities were aware of this. By not postponing the hearing of the appeal, the court infringed procedural law: it failed to ensure the defendant's right to due process, and infringed the principles of adversarial proceedings and procedural equality of arms.
Court‘s ruling
The defendant was served with procedural documents before the courts of first instance and appeal by publication. This fact confirms that, in applying the rule of service of procedural documents by publication, the courts took the view that the addressee's actual residence and place of work were unknown. Noting that such a method of service of procedural documents may, depending on the circumstances of the case, be held to be incompatible with the objective of the European Convention on Human Rights to ensure that individuals' rights are real and effective and not theoretical or illusory.
The European Court of Human Rights has stated that the principle of equality of arms, as an integral part of the broader concept of a fair trial, requires that each party should have an accessible opportunity to present its case in a manner which does not place it at a significant disadvantage compared with its opponent. In principle, it also provides for the parties to have access to and to speak on all the evidence or explanations contained in the case, with a view to influencing its decision. The principle of equality of arms would be rendered meaningless if one of the parties were not given notice of the hearing in such a way as to enable it to attend to exercise its rights under national law - while the other party is effectively exercising those rights.
The order of the court was set aside on the ground of infringement of procedural law of fundamental importance for the uniform interpretation and application of the law and the case was referred back to a lower court.