CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 novembre 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 124 November 2009 Otto v. Germany (dec.) - 21425/06 Decision 10.11.2009 [Section V] Article 35 Article 35-1 Six month period Six-month period to be calculated by reference to criteria specific to the Convention: inadmissible   Facts – The applicant was convicted of fraud and misappropriation of funds. The proceedings concluded with the Federal Constitutional Court’s decision of 17   November 2005, which the applicant received on 27   November 2005. Law – Article 35 § 1: The day on which the final domestic decision is delivered is not counted in the six-month period referred to in Article   35 §   1. The period starts to run on the day after the public delivery of the final decision or, if there is no such delivery, the day after the decision is served on the applicant or his or her representative, and expires six calendar months later, regardless of the actual duration of those months. The six-month period had therefore started to run on 28   November 2005 and had expired on 27   May 2006. However, the first letter including the application form signed by the applicant’s first lawyer and dated 25   May 2006 had been sent by fax on 29   May 2006, at 8.17   a.m., and that date should thus be treated as the date on which the application had been lodged. Accordingly, the applicant had applied to the Court more than six months after the date of the final domestic decision. In so far as the last day of the six-month period, namely 27   May 2006, had fallen on a Saturday and the applicant could well have believed that the time-limit had been extended until the next working day, Monday 29   May 2006, the Court reiterated that compliance with the six-month time-limit was determined on the basis of criteria specific to the Convention and not according to the procedure laid down, for example, in each respondent State’s domestic legislation. Furthermore, there was no indication in this case that the applicant, who had been represented by a lawyer, had been incapable of foreseeing that the deadline fell on a weekend and acting accordingly. Conclusion : inadmissible (out of time).   © 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