CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 août 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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. 72409/17 Sergey Nikolayevich TIKHOMIROV against Russia (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25   August 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 23   September 2017, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, 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”). Complaints were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (applicant’s absence from civil proceedings) The Court notes that the applicant, having lodged a claim against prison administration, took part in the hearing before the first-instance court via a video link. 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’s request to participate at the appeal hearing was dismissed by the appeal court on the ground that having successfully participated in the hearing before the first-instance court and in view of the grounds for the appeal, the applicant’s personal presence was unnecessary at the appeal stage. The Court observes that the applicant did not raise any new argument nor produced any new evidence to be examined on appeal, and thus he did not put forward a single argument which could have led the Court to the conclusion – different from that made by the domestic court – that his personal attendance had been necessary at the appeal stage as well. In view of the above, the Court finds that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded (see also, for similar recent situations, 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, with further references) and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. Remaining complaints The applicant also raised other complaints under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention. The Court has examined the application 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. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 15 September 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 Other complaints under well-established case-law 72409/17 23/09/2017 Sergey Nikolayevich TIKHOMIROV 1978   Claim against the prison administration seeking transfer to another detention facility 21/06/2017   Tugulym District Court of the Sverdlovsk Region 01/11/2017   Sverdlovsk Regional Court 31/08/2018   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Art. 8 (1) - allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations - the applicant is detained in IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region which is approximately 2,000 km away from the place of residence of his parents in Tugulym, Sverdlovsk Region.