THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 72409/17 Sergey Nikolayevich TIKHOMIROV against Russia

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25 August 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 application lodged on 23 September 2017,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning his absence from civil proceedings was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). Complaints were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

The Court notes that the applicant, having lodged a claim against prison administration, took part in the hearing before the first-instance court via a video link. There was no allegation of malfunctioning or any other restriction on his ability to follow the proceedings. In this respect, the Court reiterates that the use of videoconferencing equipment is compatible with the notion of a fair and public hearing, provided 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).

The Court further notes that the applicant’s request to participate at the appeal hearing was dismissed by the appeal court on the ground that having successfully participated in the hearing before the first-instance court and in view of the grounds for the appeal, the applicant’s personal presence was unnecessary at the appeal stage. The Court observes that the applicant did not raise any new argument nor produced any new evidence to be examined on appeal, and thus he did not put forward a single argument which could have led the Court to the conclusion – different from that made by the domestic court – that his personal attendance had been necessary at the appeal stage as well.

In view of the above, the Court finds that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded (see also, for similar recent situations, Amirkhanyan v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 25439/14, 9 January 2018, and Semilutskiy and Others v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 53079/16 and 3 others, 30 April 2020, with further references) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

The applicant also raised other complaints under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.

The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 15 September 2022.

Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(applicant’s absence from civil proceedings)

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Nature of the dispute

Final decision

First-instance hearing date

Court

Appeal hearing date

Court

Final decision date

Court

Other complaints under well-established

case-law

72409/17

23/09/2017

Sergey Nikolayevich TIKHOMIROV

1978Claim against the prison administration seeking transfer to another detention facility

21/06/2017

Tugulym District Court of the Sverdlovsk Region

01/11/2017

Sverdlovsk Regional Court

31/08/2018

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

Art. 8 (1) - allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations - the applicant is detained in IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region which is approximately

2,000 km away from the place of residence of his parents in Tugulym, Sverdlovsk Region.