CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 novembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s403582AA { width:8.67pt; display:inline-block } .s5DB54ECA { width:144.19pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s2753FA3F { width:163.53pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 30973/11 Vladimir Alekseyevich TUMANOV against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9   November 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Andreas Zünd, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   30973/11) against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 15   April 2011 by a Russian national, Mr   Vladimir Alekseyevich Tumanov, who was born in 1941 and lives in Astrakhan (“the applicant”); the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the alleged lack of public access to court hearings to the Russian Government (“the Government”), represented by Mr   M. Galperin, the then Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and lately by Mr   M. Vinogradov, his successor in that office, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant’s civil proceedings 1.     The applicant brought several civil proceedings in consumer disputes, which ended with judgments of the Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan (of 25   November 2010, 6   December 2010, 7   October 2011 and 18   November 2011), upheld by the Astrakhan Regional Court (on 29   December 2010, 2   February 2011, 16   November 2011 and 11   April 2012, accordingly). According to those judgments and the court records, the hearings in the applicant’s cases were open. Control of visitors’ access to the court premises such as checking their identities were ensured by court bailiffs responsible for order and safety in the court buildings. 2.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the courts of both instances had allegedly adopted general practice, according to which the public (except for individuals summoned by the courts) had been denied access to hearings, including in his cases. Relevant domestic law 3.     The Russian Constitution provides that hearings in all courts are open. Closed hearings are allowed in cases provided for by federal law (Article   123).   Individuals have a right to be present at an open court hearing. Their access to courtrooms and courthouses is regulated by rules of courts or other regulations on the internal functioning of courts (Article   12 of Federal Law no. 262-FZ of 22   December 2008 on Access to Information on the Functioning of Courts in the Russian Federation). Persons who do not participate in proceedings and journalists can be present at an open court hearing, to ensure the publicity of the administration of justice (Ruling no. 35 of 13   December 2012 by the Plenary Supreme Court of the Russian Federation).   Visitors are allowed in courts during working hours after an identity check (paragraph 5.1 of model internal regulations for courts approved by resolution no. 101 of 18   April 2003 of the Federal Council of Judges). THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 4.     The general principles concerning the public character of proceedings have been summarised in Zagorodnikov v. Russia (no. 66941/01 , §§   20-21, 7   June 2007). 5.     It was submitted by the Government, and not disputed by the applicant, that the courtrooms in the Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan and the Astrakhan Regional Court were large enough to accommodate both the participants of proceedings and the public, and that the regulations on the internal functioning of those courts, in force at the material time, had been adopted in accordance with the model regulations approved by the Federal Council of Judges and had not provided for any restriction of public access to the court premises. 6.     The Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in the absence of any evidence of the alleged restriction of public access to the court proceedings, the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 7.     It follows that 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 9 December 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Olga Chernishova   Peeter Roosma   Deputy Registrar   President