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 LAWJoinder 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 TigerstedtDarian Pavli
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy