Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

    On 3 June 2004 the Court of Appeal of the Odessa Region upheld the decision of the first-instance court. 10.

    The Court reiterates that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention provides that the Court may only deal with a complaint which has been lodged within six months of the date of the final decision

As a result, the applicant’s appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible, and the Supreme Court could not deal with his arguments as to the alleged errors of fact and law by courts at a lower level

the Sofia Administrative Court of 1   April 2010.

the High Court, contrary to what that court had said to the President of the Supreme Court. 15.

    Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment (Rule   42 § 1 of the Rules of Court).

the personal service of court documents could add substantially to the costs and length of proceedings (see Zavodnik , § 76).

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

access to a court.

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

    The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article   6.

    Having regard to the absence of competing interests which could create difficulties, and in the light of the circumstances of the case as a whole, the Court considers that the applicants

    The Government submitted that the right of access to court was not absolute and could be subject to limitations.

to the Court before the domestic courts (see Jaćimović v.

If the amount at stake was this negligible, the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court could only be engaged in very exceptional circumstances and no such circumstances had been established in the applicant

The court added that the applicant had exhausted the remedy provided by law by challenging the revocation decision, and that the latter had become final; in addition, the court was not competent to examine

court fees. 10.