CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 avril 2020

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9E6BC58A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94C6321B { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s12CB6876 { margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s6E03D265 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD7AA71C8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 53079/16 Anatoliy Gennadyevich SEMILUTSKIY against Russia and 3 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30   April 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, 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 list of applicants is 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 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. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (applicants’ absence from civil proceedings) The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they had not been able to attend the first-instance or appeal hearings in their cases. Article 6 § 1 reads in the relevant part as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” The Court reiterates that the domestic courts are under an obligation to ascertain, on the basis of available evidence, whether the parties were duly served with the information about the forthcoming hearing, for litigants must be apprised of their respective hearing in such a way as to have an opportunity to attend it, should they decide to exercise the right to personal presence, as established under Russian law. It is on the basis of the domestic courts’ reasoning that the Court will decide whether litigants were afforded an adequate opportunity to present their case effectively (see Gankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 2430/06 and 3 others, §§ 39-40, 31 May 2016). At the same time, unlike in criminal matters, the domestic courts cannot be held accountable for not tracking down absent parties to the civil proceedings (see Saura Bustamante v. Spain (dec.), no. 43555/98, 29 August 2000, and Sevillano González v. Spain (dec.), no. 41776/98, 2 February 1999), provided that such parties had knowledge of the civil action brought against them (see Dilipak and Karakaya v. Turkey , nos. 7942/05 and 24838/05, §   77, 4 March 2014). Moreover, if a litigant has attended the first-instance trial in respect of his particular case, the importance of his attendance at subsequent appeal hearings is not so great (see Sarnatskaya v. Russia (dec.), no.   71676/01, 23 May 2006). In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the applicants’ absence from hearings in their cases. In particular, the Court notes that the applicant in application no.   53079/16 complained about his absence from the first-instance hearings. However, he was represented by retained lawyer before that court. The lawyer attended the first-instance hearings and made submissions on the applicant’s behalf, without raising any objections against the hearings being held in the applicant’s absence. As to application no. 70145/17, the Government argued that the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month time-limit for his complaint. The Court rejects this argument, since it is evident from the case-file that the applicant lodged his complaint with the Court within six months from the final domestic decision in his case, that is from the decision of the single judge of the Supreme Court of 21 April 2017 (see the appended table below). The Court, nevertheless, finds the application inadmissible. It observes that the application concerned proceedings on the applicant’s claim for rehabilitation following his partial acquittal in separate criminal proceedings. Given the nature of the case, the Court is not convinced that the provisions of the Convention apply to the proceedings in question, as they neither concerned the determination of a criminal charge against the applicant (which had already been determined), nor as it seems touched upon any civil right or obligation of the applicant, having been of purely technical nature insofar as the domestic law laying down the right to rehabilitation was concerned. However, even proceeding on the assumption that Article 6 of the Convention is applicable to the dispute at hand, the Court does not lose sight of the fact that the nature of the case still did not call for the applicant’s presence on appeal. The applicant personally attended the first-instance hearing. He lodged a written appeal statement. He did not raise any new argument or produce any new evidence to be examined on appeal, when the appeal court decided that it could proceed without the applicant’s presence (see Godlevskiy v. Russia (dec.), no.   14888/03, 9 December 2004). The applicant thus did not put forward a single argument which could have led the Court to the conclusion that his personal attendance had been necessary at the appeal stage as well. As regards application no. 20902/18, the Court notes that the applicant took part in the proceedings before the first-instance court via representation by her husband. The latter had made extensive submissions before the first ‑ instance court. The applicant initiated the review of the first-instance judgment, having lodged an appeal statement and having indicated for the appeal court the address where she could have been contacted. The appeal court made two attempts to notify the applicant and her husband of the hearing, but given their failure for months to collect summonses from the post office, had to proceed with the examination of the appeal in the applicant’s absence. The Court reiterates that the parties have to exhibit due diligence in the defence of their interests. Litigants must also take appropriate measures to ensure effective receipt of correspondence the domestic courts may send them (see Perihan and Mezopotamya Basın Yayın   A.Ş. v. Turkey , no. 21377/03, § 38, 21 January 2014). The applicant was aware of the pending appeal proceedings. She could have expected court summonses to arrive to the address she had provided the appeal court with. However, she did not take any steps to ensure the receipt of those summonses for reasons she had also failed to indicate. She neither contacted the court registry to enquire about the date of the appeal hearing nor made use of any other venues through which the Russian courts make public information about future hearings (court’s website being one of them). In these circumstances, the Court cannot blame the Russian authorities that they proceded with the examination of the case in the applicant’s absence (see Teuschler v. Germany (dec.), no. 47636/99, 4   October 2001, and Godlevskiy, cited above). Finally, the applicant in application no. 31418/18 participated in the first ‑ instance hearing by means of a video link. He had not asked the appellate court to secure his personal attendance and neither raised this issue before the courts of cassation. To sum up, the Court 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 the applications 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 4 June 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (applicant’s absence from civil proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth Representative’s name and location Nature of the dispute Final decision First-instance hearing date Court Appeal hearing date Court Final decision date Court     53079/16 20/07/2016 Anatoliy Gennadyevich SEMILUTSKIY 24/01/1961 Kiryanova Yekaterina Vasilyevna Taganrog Compensation proceedings concerning inadequate conditions of detention (transport) 17/11/2015   Proletarskiy District Court of the Rostov Region 04/04/2016   Rostov Regional Court -     70145/17 08/09/2017 Oleg Aleksandrovich KRYMKOV 14/01/1968     Rehabilitation proceedings 20/07/2016   Ust-Abakan District Court of the Republic of Khakassia 02/11/2016   Supreme Court of the Republic of Khakassia 21/04/2017   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation     20902/18 08/04/2018 Dina Nazifovna VIDYAKINA 28/10/1990     Private consumer dispute 24/05/2017   Justice of the Peace of the 4th Court Circuit of Aleksandrov (Vladimir Region) 30/08/2017   Aleksandrov Town Court of the Vladimir Region 27/12/2017   Vladimir Regional Court     31418/18 13/06/2018 Aleksandr Viktorovich YURCHENKO 12/08/1969     Compensation proceedings concerning inadequate conditions of detention (transport) 03/08/2017   Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 25/10/2017   Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 24/05/2018   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation