CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 juin 2022

.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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 26545/20 Viktor Nikolayevich PONKRATOV against Russia (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 June 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Andreas Zünd,   Mikhail Lobov, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 30   April 2020, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning his absence from civil proceedings was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW The Court observes that the applicant took part in the first instance hearings via a video link, and that there was no allegation of malfunctioning or any other restriction on his   ability to follow the proceedings. In this respect, the Court reiterates that the use of videoconferencing equipment is compatible with the notion of a fair and public hearing, provided that the detainee is able to follow the proceedings, to see the persons present and hear what is being said, but also to be seen and heard by the other parties, the judge and witnesses, without technical impediment (see Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no.   21272/03, §   98, 2   November 2010, and Yevdokimov and Others v.   Russia , nos.   27236/05 and 10 others, §§ 42-43, 16 February 2016, with further references). The Court further notes that the applicant did not ask to participate in appeal and cassation hearings, either in person or via a video link. Finally, he did not explain what new arguments or evidences he could have personally presented or produced to the appeal and/or cassation courts. Taking into account the above factors, the Court considers that the application is manifestly ill-founded (see also for a recent example, Amirkhanyan v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no.   25439/14, 9 January 2018, and Semilutskiy and Others v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no.   53079/16 and 3 others, 30 April 2020), and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 28 July 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (applicant’s absence from civil proceedings) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Nature of the dispute Final decision First-instance hearing date Court Appeal hearing date Court Final decision date Court 26545/20 30/04/2020 Viktor Nikolayevich PONKRATOV 1984 Compensation for inadequate conditions of detention in 2006 26/02/2019   Leninskiy District Court of Tambov 05/06/2019   Tambov Regional Court 10/02/2020   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation