CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 juin 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .sF5ED19DC { width:178.27pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 1013/13 and 12310/13 Aleksey Borisovich MALYGIN against Russia and Yevgeniy Valeryevich POPOV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15   June 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The two applicants were parties to various civil proceedings. The relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning their absence from civil proceedings were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. B.     Complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (applicants’ absence from civil proceedings) The Court firstly notes the Government’s argument that the applicants missed the six-month term for lodging the complaints before the Court or the deadline for submitting the duly filled-in application form. However, the documents in the Court’s possession show that the applicants respected all the terms and deadlines imposed by the Court and that the Government’s objection to that effect should therefore be rejected. However, having examined all the materials before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicants’ complaint about their absence from court hearings should be dismissed. 1.     Application no.   1013/13 The Court notes that the national courts weighed the necessity of the applicant’s personal presence at each hearing and, reasonably, decided that it was not necessary on every occasion. As to the procedural arrangements with a view to upholding the fairness of the proceedings: first, on 2   December 2011, the applicant was brought before the court where he extensively stated the facts of the case and presented his arguments; second, upon the court’s suggestion he invited a representative (his wife) but then on 5   December 2011 retracted that decision; third, the courts thoroughly examined the applicant’s written submissions made to the courts of both instances. 2.     Application no.   12310/13 The Court notes that the first-instance court sent a letter rogatory to Priuralsky District Court of Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region which on 31   January 2012 questioned the applicant on the merits of his complaint and accepted additional motions and evidence from him. The results of that questioning as well as the additional evidence submitted by the applicant were further examined by the first-instance court. Moreover, the applicant was represented by his mother before the first ‑ instance court. The appeal court did not examine any new facts or evidence. The applicant filed an appeal where he stated all his arguments and the appeal court duly examined them. 3.     Summary In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. C.     Remaining complaints In application no.   12310/13 the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. The Court has examined the complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of application no. 12310/13 must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 6 July 2017.   Liv Tigerstedt   Luis López Guerra Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth Nature of the dispute Final decision First-instance hearing date Court Appeal hearing date Court     1013/13 13/11/2012 Aleksey Borisovich Malygin 04/01/1966 pecuniary damages for poor quality of legal services 31/01/2012   Rzhev Town Court of the Tver Region 17/04/2012   Tver Regional Court     12310/13 09/01/2013 Yevgeniy Valeryevich Popov 11/05/1973 non-pecuniary damages for bad conditions of detention 05/04/2012   Leninskiy District Court of Perm 01/10/2012   Perm Regional Court