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 } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sA2979411 { width:171.17pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s2F7F4368 { width:167.84pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 43077/12 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich ZHDANOV against Russia and 2 other applications (see appended table) 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, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE All of the applicants were parties to various civil proceedings. The list of applicants and 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) Under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention the applicants complained that they, as a prisoners, had been unable to attend court hearings in civil cases to which they were parties. 1.     Applications nos.   43077/12 and 41280/13 The final decisions in the applicants’ civil cases were adopted on 19   December 2011 (application no.   43077/12) and on 21   December 2012 (application no.   41280/13). The applicants explicitly raised complaints about their absence from the civil proceedings in their application forms on 14   August 2012 and on 8   December 2013 respectively. Their application forms were dispatched on 25   August 2012 and on 24   December 2013 respectively. In their first letters to the Court the applicants only invoked Article   6 of the Convention without formulating, even summarily, the complaints about their absence from civil proceedings (see Allan v.   the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 48539/99, 28   August 2001, and, a contrario, Barankevich v.   Russia (dec.), no.   10519/03, 20   October 2005). 2.     Application no.   18248/13 The final decision in the applicant’s civil case was adopted on 3   May 2012 and was received by the applicant on 31   May 2012. Therefore, the Court rejects the Government’s arguments that the applicant’s first letter to the Court sent on 14   November 2012 was belated (see Kazantsev v.   Russia , no.   14880/05, §   35, 3   April 2012). However, the Court accepts the Government’s arguments that the applicant failed to comply with the instructions of the Court and respect the deadline for the submission of the completed application form. It therefore finds that the date of the introduction of the application was not the date when the applicant lodged his first letter with the Court, but rather the date when he sent the completed application form to it, which was on 31   May 2013 (see Walichniewicz and Others v.   Russia (dec.), nos.   23617/09 and 3 others, 15   September 2016). Therefore, the complaints about the absence of the three applicants from civil proceedings were raised more than six months after the respective final decisions. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are belated and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   1 and   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     43077/12 06/06/2012 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Zhdanov 10/08/1979 non-pecuniary damages for unlawful criminal prosecution 08/06/2011   Kalininskiy District Court of Tyumen 19/12/2011   Tyumen Regional Court     18248/13 31/05/2013 Yevgeniy Valeryevich Skulyberdin 28/08/1979 non-pecuniary damages for unlawful criminal prosecution 10/02/2012   Kopeysk Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region 03/05/2012   Chelyabinsk Regional Court     41280/13 21/05/2013 Valeriy Ivanovich Yefremov 18/01/1956 deprivation of parental rights 06/09/2012   Kem Town Court of the Republic of Kareliya 21/12/2012   Supreme Court of the Republic of Kareliya