CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 août 2022

.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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 40783/19 Grigoriy Vasilyevich AKOPYAN and Others against Russia (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25   August 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli , President,   Andreas Zünd ,   Mikhail Lobov , judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 8   July 2019, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply and comments submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants and other details of the present application are set out in the appended table. The first applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning his absence from civil proceedings was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). Other complaints raised by all the applicants were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW Complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (first applicant’s absence from civil proceedings) The Court notes that the first applicant, having initiated civil proceedings, was duly notified about the hearings in the first instance and at no point asked to be present at the hearings. It further notes that the first applicant took part - via a video link - in the appeal instance hearings (appeal court being competent to deal with questions of facts and law), where he had an ample opportunity to present his case, submit evidence and put forward counter-arguments, and that there was no allegation of malfunctioning or any other restriction on his ability to follow the proceedings. In this respect, the Court reiterates that the use of videoconferencing equipment is compatible with the notion of a fair and public hearing, provided 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). In view of the above, the Court finds that this complaint is manifestly ill ‑ founded (see also, for recent similar situations, Amirkhanyan v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 25439/14, 9 January 2018, and Semilutskiy and Others v.   Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 53079/16 and 3 others, 30 April 2020, in fine ) and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and 4 of the Convention. Remaining complaints All the applicants also raised other complaints under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of 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 15 September 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (applicant’s absence from civil proceedings) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Nature of the dispute Final decision First-instance hearing date Court Appeal hearing date Court Final decision date Court Other complaints under   well-established case-law 40783/19 08/07/2019 Household   Grigoriy Vasilyevich AKOPYAN 1977   Nikolay Vasilyevich AKOPYAN 1982   Vasiliy Garushevich AKOPYAN 1955   Yelena Grogoryevna GRUNINA 1995   Civil proceedings for compensation for poor conditions of detention in 2002-2003 12/09/2018   Nikolaevskiy District Court of the Ulyanovsk Region (claim partially granted) 11/12/2018   Ulyanovsk Regional Court (judgment quashed, claim rejected) 25/04/2019   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Art. 8 (1) - allocation of the first applicant to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations - IK-2 OIK-2 Perm Region (2,700 km from Nikolayevka, Ulyanovsk Region). Three other applicants are brother, father and daughter of the first applicant, a detainee, respectively;   Art. 13 - lack of effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote detention facility.