CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 avril 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 18 May 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 7275/19 Salahuddin AMIN against the United Kingdom lodged on 25 January 2019 communicated on 29 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the striking out of a civil claim on the basis that the applicant was seeking to reopen issues previously decided by the trial judge in the course of his criminal trial. Under domestic law, it is only in very special circumstances that a person is entitled to ask one court to decide questions which have already been decided by another court in proceedings to which he was a party; and fresh evidence could only overcome a plea of res judicata if it entirely changed the aspect of the case. Invoking Article 6, the applicant argues that did not have a fair hearing since in his case the collateral attack on the trial judge’s ruling was not such as could justify the draconian step of striking out his claim. He further argues that the threshold for fresh evidence to overcome a plea of res judicata imposed a disproportionate burden on him.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have domestic remedies been exhausted within the meaning of Article   35 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Austin v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39714/15, 12 September 2017)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the Convention (see, for example, Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, §§ 56-65)?