CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 février 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .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 }   Communicated on 13 February 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 15034/11 Sergey Pavlovich KRYUKOV against Russia lodged on 15 February 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Sergey Pavlovich Kryukov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1984 and was detained in Revda, Murmansk Region. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 20 July 2004 the applicant was convicted of a murder. On 14 January 2005 he was transferred to correctional colony IK-23, Murmansk Region. In 2010 the applicant filed a claim for compensation for inadequate conditions of detention. On 27 December 2010 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of the Murmansk Region dismissed his claim in his absence. The court held that the applicant had been timely informed of the date, time and place of the hearing. On 17 February 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 27 December 2010 stating that he had not been transferred to the hearing. He asked the appeal court to consider his appeal in his absence. On 20 April 2011 the Murmansk Regional Court dismissed his appeal and held that there was no legal norm making the applicant’s presence at the hearing mandatory. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice For domestic provisions relating to the transfer of detainees to court hearings, see Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia (nos. 27236/05 and   10   others, §§ 9-15, 16 February 2016). COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that civil proceedings initiated by him were unfair because the first-instance court refused his request to attend the hearing. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant has a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in the proceedings concerning his conditions of detention? In particular, was the applicant afforded an opportunity to effectively present his case before the Oktyabrskiy District Court of the Murmansk Region? Did the applicant seek leave to appear before the court?