CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 27 septembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s96B22F9F { width:184.93pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 9791/05 Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich VASYANOVICH against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27   September   2016 as a Chamber composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Helena Jäderblom,   Helen Keller,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 February 2005, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich Vasyanovich, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Kursk. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3.     In December 2003 the applicant sued a bookmaker over eighty-one beer tokens that he could not redeem at the bar. He accused the bookmaker of luring him into betting with a false promise of free drinks and claimed 9,130   Russian roubles (RUB) (EUR 250) for material loss and RUB   50,000   (EUR 1,400) for distress. 4.     On 31 May 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Kursk awarded him RUB   2,430 (EUR 70) for material loss and RUB 466.50 (EUR 12) in costs. 5.     On 15 June 2004 the judgment came into force. 6.     On 19 July 2004 the applicant appealed via the District Court. 7.     On 20   July 2004 the court stayed the appeal ( оставил без движения ) until the applicant had paid a fee. 8.     On 3   August 2004 the court struck the appeal off ( возвратил ) because the applicant had not perfected it in time. 9.     On 17 September 2004 the court granted the applicant leave to appeal out of time. 10.     On 28 September 2004 the court passed the case to the Kursk Regional Court for an appeal hearing. 11.     On 20 October 2004 a Deputy President of the Regional Court returned the case as unappealable ( снял дело с кассационного рассмотрения ), because while the parties were perfecting their appeals the judgment had entered into force. 12.     On 4 November 2004 the applicant objected. 13.     On 15 November 2004 the Deputy President stood by the decision. 14.     On 1 December 2004 the applicant objected again. 15.     On 9 December 2004 the Deputy President stood by the decision again. COMPLAINTS 16.     The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the Regional Court had refused to hear his appeal. 17.     The applicant complained under Article   13 of the Convention that he had no remedy against the refusal to hear his appeal. THE LAW A.     Complaint under Article   6 18.     The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the Regional Court had refused to hear his appeal. The relevant part of this Article reads: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair   ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal....” 1.     The parties 19.     The Government argued that the complaint was inadmissible on three grounds. First, more than six months had passed from 31   May 2004 (the date of judgment) to 10 February 2005 (the date of introduction). Second, the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as he could have appealed against the District Court’s decisions to stay and strike off his appeal. Third, the complaint was manifestly ill-founded. The appeal had been returned as belated. The applicant had himself to blame, as he had had enough time to appeal. At any rate, he should have applied for leave to appeal out of time at the time he lodged the appeal, not later. 20.     The applicant maintained his complaint. He had complied with the six-month rule, as the starting date should be 17 September 2004 (the date of the leave to appeal out of time), not 31 May 2004 (the date of the judgment). The remedies suggested by the Government would have been ineffective. He had missed the deadline through no fault of his own, as the text of the judgment had been delayed. He had not applied for leave to appeal out of time because he believed that he was appealing in time. At any rate, once the District Court had passed the case to the Regional Court the appeal had had to be heard and there were no lawful grounds for its return. 2.     The Court 21.     There is no need to answer the applicants’ arguments, as the complaint is anyway inadmissible for another reason (see Van der Putten v.   the Netherlands (dec.), no. 15909/13, § 28, 27 August 2013). Article   35 §   3 of the Convention reads: “3.     The Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Article 34 if it considers that ... (b)     the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage, unless respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits and provided that no case may be rejected on this ground which has not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal.” 22.     To become a significant disadvantage, disregard of a civil claim, wrong though it may be, must produce a “serious adverse effect on [the claimant’s] life” (see Ladygin v.   Russia (dec.), no. 35365/05, 30 August 2011). The most substantial element of the applicant’s claim was his inability to redeem the beer tokens. That claim was successful. The remainder of the claim, and the appeal, related to bets which he had lost and a claim for non-pecuniary damage, and were largely speculative. His adversary’s appeal was also returned. There is no suggestion in the case that the failure to deal with the applicant’s appeal – even if it gave rise to an issue under Article 6 the Convention – had any adverse effect on him. 23.     Furthermore, respect for human rights does not come into play. By replying twice to the applicant’s objections the Deputy President has duly considered the case. 24.     Accordingly, this complaint must be declared inadmissible and rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (b) and 4. B.     Complaint under Article   13 25.     The applicant complained under Article   13 of the Convention that he had no remedy against the refusal to hear his appeal. This Article reads: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” 26.     A remedy is required only against a claimed breach of the Convention that is arguable (see Leander v. Sweden , 26 March 1987, §   77(a), Series   A   no.   116). If a significant disadvantage is absent, so is the arguable claim (see Vasilchenko v. Russia , no. 34784/02, §   54, 23   September 2010). 27.     Accordingly, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 20 October 2016. Stephen Phillips   Luis López Guerra   Registrar   President