Information Note on the Court’s case-law 212
November 2017
Sukhanov and Others v. Russia - 56251/12, 23302/13 and 53116/15
Judgment 7.11.2017 [Section III]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Dismissal of appeals by appellants who had asked for the appeals to be heard in their absence: violation
Facts – The courts declined to examine the three applicants’ actions on the merits, on the grounds that the applicants had withdrawn them. The Government maintained that the applicants had not appeared in court or requested that their cases be heard in their absence. In their view, this amounted to tacit withdrawal, resulting in the termination of the proceedings under Article 222 § 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure*.
The applicants alleged that their applications to the courts had not been examined on the merits, in breach of their right of access to a court.
Law – Article 6 § 1: Appearing before the court was a right rather than an obligation for claimants in civil cases. The court was entitled to consider a repeated failure by a claimant to appear as a tacit withdrawal and to terminate the proceedings accordingly. This was possible provided two conditions had been met: the claimant had been duly informed of the date of the hearing and he or she had not requested that the case be heard in his or her absence.
The two applicants whose applications were declared admissible (Mr Sukhanov and Mr Mazunin) had requested that their cases be heard in their absence. It was thus clear that they had not withdrawn their actions, either expressly or implicitly. Hence, the application by the courts of Article 222 § 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure appeared manifestly arbitrary as it made no connection between the established facts, the applicable law and the outcome of the proceedings.
It was therefore unnecessary for the Court to ascertain in the abstract whether the termination of the proceedings, as provided for by the legislature in Article 222 § 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, had pursued a legitimate aim in so far as its application, which had been manifestly arbitrary, had distorted the purpose of that provision. For the same reason the Court found it unnecessary to examine the proportionality of the impugned measure, with particular reference to the question whether it had been open to the above-mentioned applicants, as suggested by the Government, to resubmit their claims in order to assert their right to a court.
The court rulings concerning the two applicants had been arbitrary and therefore amounted to a “denial of justice”.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 2,000 to Mr Mazunin in respect of non-pecuniary damage; no claim submitted by Mr Sukhanov.
(See also Anđelković v. Serbia, 1401/08, 9 April 2013, Information Note 162)
* Under Article 222 § 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure the proceedings are terminated if a claimant fails to appear at two hearings and has not requested that the case be heard in his or her absence, and if the defendant has not insisted that the case be examined on the merits.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy