THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application s no s . 8200/11 and 11304/11 Lyudmila Viktorovna PFAYFFER against Russia and Yuriy Yakovlevich SUKHOBAYEVSKIY against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24 May 2018 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková, President, Dmitry Dedov, Jolien Schukking, 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 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant in application 8200/11,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application s are 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

A. Joinder 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.

B. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they and/or their representatives had not been able to attend the appeal hearings in their cases. Article 6 § 1 reads in the relevant part as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”

The Government stated that the applicants, who had been properly represented, and their representatives had been duly informed of the appeal hearings and could have attended.

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).

Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that both the applicants and their representatives were duly informed of the time of the appeal hearings and the court in which they were to be held. The summons contained sufficient information about the date and hour of the hearings and were properly served on the parties.

The Court also notes that the applicants, of their own choice, did not attend the first-instance hearings, having opted for representation, including by a lawyer. The representatives were present at the hearings before the first-instance courts and thus were able to introduce their arguments, submit evidence and challenge the arguments of the opposing parties. The representatives also filed the appeal statements. Furthermore, no new evidence was produced or examined at the appeal hearings, and even the opposing party was absent in the case of the applicant, Mr Sukhobayevskiy, when the appeal court decided that it could dispense with the hearing in view of the lack of the necessity to examine evidence (see Godlevskiy v. Russia (dec.), no. 14888/03, 9 December 2004). The Court also noted that neither of the applicants or their representatives informed the appeal courts of the reasons for their absence or asked for the adjournment of the proceedings.

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 application s inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 14 June 2018 .

             Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant name

Date of birth

Representative name and location

Nature of the dispute

Final decision

First-instance hearing date

Court

Appeal hearing date

Court

8200/11

17/01/2011

Lyudmila Viktorovna Pfayffer

25/12/1948

shared land ownership dispute

25/05/2010

Gelendzhik Town Court of the Krasnodar region

27/07/2010

Krasnodar Regional Court

11304/11

25/12/2010

Yuriy Yakovlevich Sukhobayevskiy

25/03/1951

Boyev Dmitriy Alekseyevich

Norilsk

royalties dispute / intellectual property

08/04/2010

Norilsk Town Court

28/06/2010

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court