CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 octobre 2019

.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 234 November 2019 Pantsulai v. Russia (dec.) - 34275/19 Decision 8.10.2019 [Section III] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Failure to make use of cassation appeal review by a person detained pending deportation: inadmissible Facts – The applicant was placed in detention pending deportation under the judicial procedure prescribed by the Code of Administrative Procedure of 2015. The latest in a series of detention orders was issued by the town court and the applicant’s appeal against it was dismissed by the regional court. Law – Article 35 § 1: In Chigirinova v. Russia (dec.) (28448/16, 13 December 2016, Information Note 203 ), the Court had concluded that in cases concerning disputes regarding public authorities, any person who intended to lodge an application in respect of a violation of the rights under the Convention had to – in addition to the ordinary appeal provided for by the Code of Administrative Procedure – use the remedies offered by the two-layer cassation procedure, since it constituted an effective remedy capable of providing redress in cases examined under the Code. Nothing in the present case indicated that the applicant had lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment of the regional court, or intended to do so, or had in any way been prevented from lodging such an appeal. Given that Chapter 28 of the Code did not provide any special rules or exceptions to the ordinary procedure of cassation appeal review for persons detained pending deportation or readmission, the applicant had not exhausted the effective domestic remedies available to him. Conclusion : inadmissible (failure to exhaust domestic remedies).   © 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