THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application s no s . 43538/16 and 17888/18 Anatoliy Sergeyevich SLESAREVSKIY against Russia and Oleg Mikhaylovich LOKTIONOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5 November 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 their absence from 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.

The applicants complained that the proceedings to which they were parties were unfair given their absence from hearings. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:

“1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law...”

As regards application no. 43538/16 t he Court finds that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is inapplicable to the proceedings in which the applicant challenged the quality of the prosecutor ’ s response to his grievances about the prison administration, as they did not involve the determination of the applicant ’ s civil rights or obligations or a criminal charge against him, within the meaning of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Inderbiyeva v. Russia , no. 56765/08, § 113, 27 March 2012 ).

It follows that this application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 thereof.

As to application no. 17888/18, the Court observes that both parties were absent from the first-instance hearing with the court having decided to examine the case in writing as a result. The applicant did not argue that he or his representative were unable to present written submissions to the court or were not aware of the position of the responding party. It is clear that the applicant was provided with the case-file materials, written submissions of the respondent party and made written arguments himself. The Court further notes that the applicant took part in the first appeal hearing via a video link. He and his representative both presented their arguments to the appeal court, having mainly referred to the appeal complaint and other written submissions. There is no indication that they raised any additional arguments. The applicant was absent from the second appeal hearing, but was represented. The defendant party did not attend either of the appeal hearings.

The Court notes that the appeal court examined his case anew both as regards points of law and facts. The Court reiterates that the use of videoconferencing equipment is not, as such, incompatible with the notion of a fair and public hearing, but it must be ensured that the detainee is able to follow the proceedings, to see the persons present and hear what is being said, but also to be seen and heard by the other parties, the judge and witnesses, without technical impediment (see Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, § 98, 2 November 2010, and Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia , nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, §§ 42-43, 16 February 2016, with further references). As there was no allegation of malfunctioning or any other restriction on the applicant ’ s ability to follow the proceedings and as the appeal court was competent to take evidence from the applicant and his counsel and to make a fresh assessment of it, the Court considers that any defect caused by the applicant ’ s absence from the first-instance hearing was rectified at the appeal stage.

This complaint is thus manifestly ill-founded and it follows that application no. 17888/18 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § § 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention (for similar reasoning see Amirkhanyan v. Russia ( dec. ) [Committee], no.25439/14, 9 January 2018).

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 26 November 2020 .

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

Date of birth

Representative ’ s name and location

Nature of the dispute

First-instance hearing D ate

Court

Appeal hearing D ate

Court

Final decision

D ate

Court

43538/16

14/11/2016

Anatoliy Sergeyevich SLESAREVSKIY

26/12/1983

Proce edings against the prosecutor ’ s failure to properly respo nd to the applicant ’ s complaint

01/09/2015

The Kalin inskiy District Court of Tyumen

23/11/2015

The Administrative Divisi on of the Tyumen Regional Court

17888/18

28/03/2018

Oleg Mikhaylovich LOKTIONOV

12/03/1977

Prikhodkina Valeriya Yuryevna

Chelyabinsk

Compensation for reputation damages

15/06/2016

Tsentralniy District Court

23/01/2017

Chelyabinsk Regional Court

29/09/2017

Supreme Court of Russia