Communicated on 23 February 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 55670/17 Vasiliy Vadimovich KOROBEYNIKOV against Russia lodged on 21 July 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vasiliy Vadimovich Korobeynikov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Moscow. He is represented before the Court by Mr D.I. Gravin , a lawyer practising in Moscow.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant held a position of a business development director at the Trade House Perekrestok CJSC ( ЗАО « Торговый дом « Перекресток »).

On 4 March 2016 he was dismissed for being absent from duty.

On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against his former employer seeking reinstatement, recovery of wages for the period of forced absence as well as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

On 12 May 2016 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow ( Тверской районный суд г . Москвы ) heard arguments from the applicant ’ s representative, two representatives of the defendant, and the prosecutor, and then dismissed the action.

The applicant appealed and on 12 December 2016 the Moscow City Court ( Московский городской суд ) heard arguments from the applicant ’ s representative, the defendant ’ s representative, and the prosecutor (who argued that the appeal should be dismissed) and then upheld the first-instance judgment.

The applicant lodged a cassation appea l, which was refused on 3 April 2017 by the City Court.

On 6 June 2017 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ( Верховный суд Российской Федерации ) refused the applicant ’ s second cassation appeal.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that the participation of a prosecutor in the civil proceedings had contravened Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by inter alia undermining the principle of equality of arms.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards involvement of a prosecutor in these proceedings?

2. What were the grounds in the domestic law and/or practice allowing for the prosecutor ’ s participation in the present set of proceedings?

3. What were the reasons justifying the prosecutor ’ s participation in the proceedings?

4. Did the domestic courts duly review the above reasons having regard to the individual situation of each party to the proceedings? Did they consider any impact it had on the equality of arms in the proceedings?