CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 septembre 2019

.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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD8BF637E { margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; 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 } .s6F7FC1B9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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. 42361/17 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich GROMOVOY against Russia and 4 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 26   September 2019 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 in applications nos. 42361/17 and 43091/17, 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 (applicant’s absence from civil proceedings) In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applications are inadmissible. 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 the 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). As to application no. 42361/17, the Court notes that the applicant did not lodge an application for cassation review of the judgment of the Tsentralniy District Court of Chelyabinsk, as upheld on appeal by the Chelyabinsk Regional Court. However, without going into the issue of the exhaustion of the domestic remedies, the Court in any event finds the application inadmissible. The applicant brought before the Russian courts a claim for rehabilitation. The Court entertains doubts that the provisions of the Convention apply to the proceedings in question. The proceedings neither concerned a criminal charge against the applicant, nor as it seems touched upon any civil right or obligation of the applicant, having been of technical nature insofar as the domestic law laying down the right to rehabilitation was concerned. However, what is more important is that the applicant was represented in the proceedings. The applicant did not put forward a single argument which could have led the Court to the conclusion that his personal attendance was necessary in these circumstances. Having considered the nature of the proceedings in question and the presence of the representative, the Court finds that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. As regards applications nos. 50657/17 and 9357/18, the Court observes that the applicants took part in the appeal proceedings via a video link. The appeal court examined their cases anew both as regards points of law and facts. The Court reiterates that the use of videoconferencing equipment is not, as such, incompatible with the notion of a fair and public hearing, but it must be ensured 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). As there was no allegation of malfunctioning or any other restriction on the applicants’ ability to follow the proceedings and as the appeal court was competent to take evidence from the applicants and give a fresh assessment to it, the Court considers that any defect caused by the applicants’ absence from the first-instance hearing was rectified at the appeal stage and these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must also be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention (for similar reasoning see Amirkhanyan v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no.25439/14, 9   January 2018). Finally, turning to the two remaining applications, nos. 43092/17 and 58371/17, the Court observes that the Government in these cases provided proof, which the applicants failed to refute, that they and/or their lawyer 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, notification by a text message, provided sufficient information about the date and hour of the hearing (see Teuschler v. Germany (dec.), no.   47636/99, 4 October 2001, and Godlevskiy v. Russia (dec.), no.   14888/03, 9   December 2004). 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 17 October 2019.   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     42361/17 18/05/2017 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Gromovoy 11/10/1983 Dunayeva Alla Igorevna Chelyabinsk Rehabilitation proceedings 27/06/2016   Tsentralniy District Court of Chelyabinsk 21/11/2016   Chelyabinsk Regional Court 21/11/2016   Chelyabinsk Regional Court     43092/17 06/06/2017 Irina Yuryevna Fedotova 15/09/1966     Legal fees related to a civil dispute 05/10/2016   Leninskiy District Court of Penza 13/12/2016   Penza Regional Court 20/04/2017   Supreme Court of Russia     50657/17 13/12/2017 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Krayevets 30/11/1980     Claim for compensation for damages caused as a result of detention in poor conditions in a pre-trial facility in 2004 12/04/2017   Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 06/09/2017   Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 24/11/2017   Supreme Court of Russia     58371/17 02/08/2017 Alla Georgiyevna Ivanova 27/01/1934     Determination of the exact location and State registration of the land plot; compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage 11/02/2016   Tsentralnyi District Court of Kaliningrad 20/04/2016   Kaliningrad Regional Court 3/02/2017   Supreme Court of Russia     9357/18 17/01/2018 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Krayevets 30/11/1980     Claim for compensation for damages caused as a result of detention in poor conditions in a temporary detention facility (IVS) 16/01/2017   Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 19/06/2017   Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 18/12/2017   Supreme Court of Russia