24732/17;60750/19

THIRD SECTION CASE OF ALEKSEYEV AND LYASHKOV v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 24732/17 and 60750/19)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 6 February 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Alekseyev and Lyashkov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Diana Kovatcheva, President,  Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,  Mateja Đurović, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 16 January 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.  The applicants complained of the domestic courts’ failure to ensure their participation in hearings in civil proceedings to which they were parties. In application no. 24732/17, the applicant also raised another complaint under the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Jurisdiction 6.  The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 7.  The applicants complained that their right to a fair hearing had been breached on account of the domestic courts’ refusal of their requests to appear in court. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 8.  The Court reiterates that the applicants, detainees at the time of the events, were not afforded an opportunity to attend hearings in civil proceedings to which they were parties. The details of those domestic proceedings are indicated in the appended table. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to present one’s case effectively before the court and to enjoy equality of arms with the opposing side, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, §§ 59-60, ECHR 2005-II). The Court’s analysis of an alleged violation of the right to a fair trial in respect of cases where incarcerated applicants complain about their absence from hearings in civil proceedings includes the following elements: examination of the manner in which domestic courts assessed the question whether the nature of the dispute required the applicants’ personal presence and determination whether domestic courts put in place any procedural arrangements aiming at guaranteeing their effective participation in the proceedings (see Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, § 48, 16 February 2016). 9.  In the leading case of Yevdokimov and Others, cited above, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the domestic courts deprived the applicants of the opportunity to present their cases effectively and failed to meet their obligation to ensure respect for the principle of a fair trial. 11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.  In application no. 24732/17 the applicant submitted another complaint which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well‑established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13 February 2018, and Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, §§ 39-41, 18 December 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in detention facilities. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Igranov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42933/13 and 8 others, § 40, 20 March 2018), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unfairness of the civil proceedings; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards another complaint raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 February 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva  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 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 Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     24732/17 15/02/2017 Denis Viktorovich ALEKSEYEV   Refusal to allow a visit of the applicant’s wife 08/07/2016   Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 21/09/2016   Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 09/06/2017   Supreme Court of Russia Art. 8 (1) - lack of practical opportunities for or restriction on prison visits - refusal to allow visit of the applicant’s female partner (their marriage is not registered) in correctional colony IK-34 Krasnoyarsk Region,   Art. 6 (1) - absence of detainees from civil proceedings - absence at hearings in another set of the civil proceedings relating to medical negligence; Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 17/10/2016; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 11/01/2017; final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 30/08/2017 4,550     60750/19 14/11/2019 Andrey Mikhaylovich LYASHKOV   Poor conditions of detention 06/03/2018   Sovetskiy District Court of Bryansk 21/08/2018   Bryansk Regional Court 18/10/2019   Supreme Court of Russia   1,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.