CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 décembre 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 } .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 } .s80E2F039 { width:6.54pt; display:inline-block } .s59B01AF0 { width:192.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 28999/10 Iosif Mnatsakanovich OGANYAN against Russia and 2 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7   December 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 and the observations submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 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 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 civil proceedings in their cases. 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 to which they were a party (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). As regards application no. 28999/10, the Government provided documents showing that the applicant attended hearings held by the first ‑ instance court, made submissions, amended claims, asked and obtained expert reports and thus made an effective use of his procedural rights. He, however, did not attend an appeal hearing of which he had been informed by the court’s Registry. The applicant argued that he had been admitted to hospital, that he had informed the appeal court of his hospitalisation and that he had solicited an adjournment of the proceedings. The Government disputed the applicant’s submissions, having noted that there was no evidence in support of the applicant’s argument. The Court does not need to settle the differences in the parties’ submissions. It observes that the patent dispute to which the applicant was a party was largely based on documentary evidence produced before the first-instance court. The appeal court, and the applicant did not argue otherwise, had not examined any new evidence or had not overstepped the limits of the parties’ submissions made before the first-instance court and then in their grounds for appeal. The applicant also did not argue that he had intended to raise, in person, any new arguments relevant to the outcome of the case. In view of the nature of the dispute, the limited review by the appeal court and the fact that the applicant was present at the hearing before the first-instance court and that he was able to introduce his arguments, submit evidence and challenge the arguments of the defendants (see Godlevskiy v. Russia (dec.), no. 14888/03, 9   December 2004), the Court considers that the applicant’s right under Article 6 of the Convention was respected and it follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. Turning to applications nos. 11467/13 and 3482/16, the Court observes that the Government in these cases provided proof, which the applicants failed to refute, that they had been properly notified about the hearings in their respective cases. The Court thus finds it established that the applicants were duly informed of the time of the hearing and the court in which it would be held. The summons or, in the case of the applicant in case no. 3482/16 notification by a text message and a phone call, provided sufficient information about the date and hour of the hearing (see Teuschler v.   Germany (dec.), no. 47636/99, 4 October 2001, and Godlevskiy, cited above). In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 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 11 January 2018.   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 First-instance hearing date Court Appeal hearing date Court     28999/10 19/04/2010 Iosif Mnatsakanovich Oganyan 16/12/1950 Patent rights 12/10/2009   Moscow District Court of St Petersburg 18/01/2010   St Petersburg City Court     11467/13 26/09/2012 Sergey Aleksandrovich Kuznetsov 27/04/1979   Tort action against a dental clinic concerning the quality of the medical services 19/06/2012   Dobryanskiy District Court 08/10/2012   Perm Regional Court     3482/16 14/12/2015 Vitaliy Vitalyevich Shadrintsev 09/12/1975 Labour dispute, including a claim for arrears in bonus and compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage 22/05/2014   Pervomaiskiy District Court of Krasnodar 05/08/2014   Krasnodar Regional Court   18/11/2015   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation