CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 novembre 2018

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 224 December 2018 Galkin v. Russia (dec.) - 5497/18 Decision 20.11.2018 [Section III] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Failure to seek supervisory review following a decision by the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court: inadmissible Facts – The applicant complained about a decision of the Municipal Council restricting public access to the meetings of its sub-committees. The applicant’s administrative claim was dismissed and that judgment was upheld on appeal to the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court. The applicant did not seek supervisory review. Law – Article 35 § 1: In Chigirinova v.   Russia (dec.), the Court had held that, in disputes involving public authorities examined under the Code of Administrative Procedure (“the CAP”), a person who intended to lodge an application with the Court had first to use remedies offered by the existing two-tier cassation procedure: firstly, before the presidium of a regional court and, subsequently, before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court. Under the CAP, judgments issued by a regional court were not amenable to cassation review, but subject to an appeal to the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court. After that, it was open to the parties to bring an application for a supervisory review within three months after the ordinary (“second-instance”) appeal proceedings. The applicant had been able to initiate a supervisory review after his appeal had been rejected by the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court and had been entitled to a decision either dismissing or transferring his supervisory-review application for examination on the merits by the Presidium of the Supreme Court. The supervisory-review procedure, therefore, had been directly accessible to the applicant and had been capable of giving an answer to the substance of his Convention complaint. In cases where the proceedings under the CAP had started at the regional level and had been pursued before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court, as in the applicant’s case, an application for a supervisory review fell within the sequence of domestic remedies which an applicant was required to exhaust for the purposes of Article 35 §   1 of the Convention. Conclusion : inadmissible (failure to exhaust domestic remedies). (See Chigirinova v.   Russia (dec.), 28448/16, 13   December 2016, Information Note 203 ; see also Abramyan and Others v.   Russia (dec.), 38951/13 and 59611/13, 12   May 2015, Information Note   186 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes