THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 74476/17 and 79758/17
Yevgeniy Gennadyevich ROMANOV against Russia
and Nikita Alekseyevich KAZANTSEV against Russia
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2 June 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 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 their absence from civil proceedings were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
Joinder of the applicationsHaving 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 (applicants’ absence from civil proceedings)The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they had not been able to attend the hearings in their cases.
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 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). Moreover, if a litigant has attended the first-instance trial in respect of his particular case, the importance of his attendance at subsequent appeal hearings is not so great (see Sarnatskaya v. Russia (dec.), no. 71676/01, 23 May 2006).
In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicants’ complaints are manifestly ill-founded.
As regards application no. 74476/17, the Court notes that the applicant’s lawyer took part in the proceedings before the first-instance court, having actively participated in a number of hearings and having made extensive submissions before the first‑instance court. The applicant initiated the review of the first-instance judgment. The appeal court made two attempts to notify the applicant of the hearing. It also properly notified the lawyer. Given the applicant’s failure to collect summonses from the post office and the lawyer’s failure to appear in court allegedly in view of the involvement in other unrelated proceedings, the statement for which no evidence was provided to the court, the appeal court had to proceed with the examination of the appeal in their absence. 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 applicant was aware of the pending appeal proceedings. He could have expected court summonses to arrive to the address he had provided the court with. However, he did not take any steps to ensure the receipt of those summonses for reasons he had also failed to indicate. The lawyer also did not provide any evidence of his inability to attend. In these circumstances, the Court cannot blame the Russian authorities that they proceeded with the examination of the case in the applicant’s or his lawyer’s absence (see Teuschler v. Germany (dec.), no. 47636/99, 4 October 2001).
As to application no. 79758/17, the Court notes that the applicant was properly informed of the first-instance hearing. His representative was also summoned in due time. The representative attended the first-instance hearing, having been given an appropriate opportunity to present the case and to make submissions on the applicant’s behalf. The applicant was also duly informed about the appeal hearing. According to evidence provided by the Government, he had received summons to the appeal hearing in person a week prior to it. He, however, did not attend and did not ask the appeal court to adjourn the proceedings. In these circumstances, the domestic court had no choice but to proceed with the examination of the case.
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 23 June 2022.
Viktoriya Maradudina 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
74476/17
22/09/2017
Yevgeniy Gennadyevich ROMANOV
1964
Melamed Aleksey Motelevich
Nakhodka
compensation for damage caused by a crime; final judgment of 10/07/2017 by the Supreme Court of Russia
28/09/2016
Nakhodka City Court of the Primorye Region
01/02/2017
Primorye Regional Court
79758/17
10/11/2017
Nikita Alekseyevich KAZANTSEV
1984
Romantsova Yekaterina Anatolyevna
Moscow
termination of the sale contract; final judgment of 24/05/2017 by the Supreme Court of Russia
05/05/2016
Nikulinsky District Court of Moscow
12/10/2016
Moscow City Court