THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 12864/17 Aleksandr Yuryevich LEONOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8 March 2022 as a Committee composed of:

María Elósegui, President, Andreas Zünd, Frédéric Krenc, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 12864/17) against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 31 January 2017 by a Russian national, Mr Aleksandr Yuryevich Leonov, who was born in 1983 and lives in Tavrovo (“the applicant”);

the decision to give notice of the application to the Russian Government (“the Government”), represented by Mr M. Galperin, the then Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and lately by Mr M. Vinogradov, his successor in that office;

the decision to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) about the domestic courts’ failure to inform him of the appeal hearing in his criminal case.

2. In 2016 the trial court found the applicant guilty of misappropriation and embezzlement of monies and banned him from holding a managerial or administrative post in a commercial entity. On 1 August 2016 the Belgorod Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal in the applicant’s absence. On 11 April 2019 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the latest judgment, for the lack of evidence that the applicant had been properly notified of the appeal hearing, and on account of the appellate court’s failure to examine the reason for the applicant’s absence. The Presidium remitted the case for a fresh examination by the appeal instance. The applicant was notified of the new appeal hearing scheduled for 5 June 2019 and introduced additional grounds of appeal.

3. On 5 June 2019 the Regional Court examined the case on appeal and upheld the conviction. The applicant was not present and was represented by a State-appointed lawyer. The appellate court decided to proceed with the examination of the case in the applicant’s absence, as he had been notified of the examination of the case in good time but had failed to provide a valid reason for his absence.

4. The applicant submitted to the Court a copy of an unsigned request dated 5 June 2019 to adjourn the hearing until a later date containing a reference to unspecified health issues. The request did not bear any official stamp, signature or mark of the appellate court’s registry, nor did it contain further details. He also provided the Court with a copy of a sick leave certificate for 5 and 6 June 2019.

5. He complained under Article 6 about the national courts’ failure to inform him of the first appeal hearing in his case, arguing that the situation had not been remedied at the appeal hearing of 5 June 2019. He noted that he had not needed to be represented by a State-appointed lawyer with whom he had not discussed his position, and stated that he had wished to represent his case in person as he had relevant legal training.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

6. The Presidium of the Regional Court unequivocally acknowledged a violation of the applicant’s defence rights in the first round of the appeal proceedings and ordered a fresh appeal hearing.

7. As regards the redress, its appropriateness and sufficiency depend on the nature of the violation complained of by the applicant (see Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, §§ 67 and 70, 2 November 2010). The applicant, who was at liberty, was appraised of the new appellate hearing in good time. He failed to demonstrate that his last-minute request for adjournment had been submitted to the appellate court, prior to the hearing or at all. Indeed, the unsigned request did not bear an official stamp or any other formal mark to indicate the date and time when it had been received by the Regional Court’s registry. The request only contained a reference to unspecified health issues but did not refer to any substantiating document (including the sick leave certificate mentioned above). In these circumstances, the Court agrees with the domestic courts’ assessment to the effect that the applicant had been duly notified of the new hearing and had been afforded an opportunity to attend and argue his case but failed to provide a valid reason for his absence or to request an adjournment in good time.

8. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the rehearing of the case constituted an adequate redress for the breach of the applicant’s right to be informed of the appellate hearing in his case, capable of depriving him of victim status.

9. It follows that the applicant can no longer claim to be a “victim” of the alleged violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Articles 34 and 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4.

10. In so far as the applicant may be understood to complain separately about his inability to represent his case in person in the latest round of the appeal proceedings, the applicant was represented by a professional lawyer who, according to the hearing record, actively maintained the applicant’s position formulated in the grounds of appeal. The applicant failed to explain in his submissions what specific statements or evidence, distinct from those made by his counsel, he wished to lay before the appeal court (see, mutatis mutandis, Borisov v. Russia , no. 12543/09, § 40, 13 March 2012). Accordingly, there is no indication that the adversarial character of the proceedings was compromised in the proceedings of 5 June 2019. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

11. The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention about an incorrect assessment of facts and wrongful application of law in the proceedings held in 2019.

12. The Court 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 the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. 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 31 March 2022.

Olga Chernishova María Elósegui Deputy Registrar President