THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 12530/19 Irina Vladimirovna PLEKHANOVA against Russia and 2 other applications

(s ee 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 application s 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 applicant s 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 LAW

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

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 Tigerstedt 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

Final decision date

Court

12530/19

20/02/2019

Irina Vladimirovna PLEKHANOVA

1967Mortgage 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

1958Boyev 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

1991Civil 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