CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 décembre 2020

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s749C56BD { margin-left:27.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sCA386EC { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:27.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sA3A61D5F { width:158.44pt; 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 } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s26F67D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:3pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 12530/19 Irina Vladimirovna PLEKHANOVA against Russia and 2 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17   December 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Peeter Roosma, 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, 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 his absence from appellate hearings in 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 appellate hearings in civil proceedings) Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the present 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). Turning to the present applications, the Court observes that the Government provided proof, which the applicants failed to refute, that the domestic courts had sent summonses to the applicants to properly notify them about the hearings in their respective cases. The notifications were either not served on the applicants following their absence and their subsequent failure to collect them from the post office or were given, without any objection on the latter’s part, to a family member living together with the applicant. The Court reiterates that the parties have to exhibit due diligence in the defence of their interests. Litigants must also take appropriate measures to ensure effective receipt of correspondence the domestic courts may send them (see Perihan and Mezopotamya Basın Yayın   A.Ş. v. Turkey , no. 21377/03, § 38, 21 January 2014). The applicants were aware of the pending appeal proceedings. They could have expected court summonses to arrive to the address they had provided the appeal court with. However, they did not take any steps to ensure the receipt of those summonses for reasons they had also failed to indicate. They neither contacted the court registry to enquire about the date of the appeal hearing nor made use of any other venues through which the Russian courts make public the information about future hearings (court’s website being one of them). In these circumstances, the Court cannot blame the Russian authorities that they proceeded with the examination of the case in the applicants’ absence (see Teuschler v. Germany (dec.), no.   47636/99, 4   October 2001; Godlevskiy v. Russia (dec.), no.   14888/03, 9   December   2004; and, more recently, Semilyutskiy and Others v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], nos. 53079/16 and 3 others, 30 April 2020). 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 21 January 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Liv Tigerstedt   Darian Pavli   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 Year 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     12530/19 20/02/2019 Irina Vladimirovna PLEKHANOVA 1967     Mortgage debt and foreclosure 17/06/2016   Meshchansky District Court of Moscow 04/06/2018   Moscow City Court 15/08/2018   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation   (a copy of the decision received on 21/08/2018)     13673/19 27/02/2019 Rinat Amirovich FAYZULIN 1958 Boyev Dmitriy Alekseyevich Norilsk Dispute regarding re-payment of a debt 04/09/2017   Norilsk Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region 01/08/2018   Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 07/02/2019   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation     61734/19 01/11/2019 Sergey Ivanovich SKURIKHIN 1991     Civil dispute with a private insurance company 05/12/2018   Justice of peace for district no. 8 of the Leninskiy court district of Ekaterinburg 28/03/2019   Leninskiy District Court of Ekaterinburg 18/06/2019   Sverdlovsk Regional Court