THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 71394/13 and 34696/14
Aleksandr Vladimirovich FEDYUSHIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 March 2017 as a committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Karen Reid, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged by the same applicant, Mr Aleksandr Vladimirovich Fedyushin, on 9 October 2013 and 21 July 2014,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant in the two cases, nos. 71394/13 and 34696/14, is Mr Aleksandr Vladimirovich Fedyushin, a Russian national, who was born in 1964 and who serves his life sentence in the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region of Russia.
The applicant was a party to two different sets of civil proceedings. His complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning his absence from these proceedings were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”) on 30 June 2016.
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
The Court notes that under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complained that he, as a prisoner, had been unable to attend hearings before the first-instance court which had examined his civil claims.
In this respect the Court observes that, as follows from the Government’s submissions, supported by the relevant documents, the applicant, while applying to the domestic courts, explicitly asked them to examine his claims in his absence. The Government argued in this respect that the applicant had waived his right to personal appearance. The applicant admitted that he had asked the courts to hold hearings in his absence, but only because, in his view, the Russian law, namely Article 771 of the Code of the Execution of Sentences did not provide a detainee with an opportunity to take part in civil proceedings.
The Court reiterates that neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 6 of the Convention prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to the guarantees of a fair trial (see Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 73, ECHR 2006-XII). However, such a waiver must, if it is to be effective for Convention purposes, be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate with its importance (ibid). Whenever an oral hearing is held, the parties have the right to attend and to make submissions to the bench. Any party may, as a matter of course, waive this right of his or her own free will and there will be no breach of the fair-hearing principle under Article 6 of the Convention as long as the waiver has been established in an unequivocal manner (see Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, § 30, 16 February 2016, with further references).
The Court takes note of the Government’s argument that the applicant waived his right to attendance. Indeed, as it follows from the applicant’s statements of claim lodged with the domestic courts he had clearly and unequivocally forfeited his right to attend by asking the courts to proceed with the examination of the cases in his absence. The mere interpretation by the applicant of the Russian law as not providing him with an effective opportunity to attend is not sufficient for the Court to find that he had been forced to waive his right to personal presence. In addition, the Court also does not lose sight of the fact that the applicant did not make a complaint concerning his personal presence to the appeal court. Accordingly, the Court finds that the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 of the Convention are inadmissible and must be rejected under Article 35 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 6 April 2017.
Karen ReidLuis López Guerra
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy