CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 mars 2012

.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. 150 March 2012 Shefer v. Russia (dec.) - 45175/04 Decision 13.3.2012 [Section I] Article 35 Article 35-3-b No significant disadvantage Lengthy inactivity by applicant in enforcing low-value claim: inadmissible   Facts – In 2004 the applicant was awarded approximately EUR   34 (later increased to approximately EUR   61) in damages against a private party. The bailiff’s service returned the unenforced writ of execution to the applicant because it did not contain all the necessary information concerning the debtor. On an appeal by the applicant, the second-instance court found that the writ of execution was indeed defective and that the bailiff had been entitled to return it for correction. The applicant never re-submitted the writ to the bailiffs’ service as required under domestic law. Law – Article 35 § 3 (b): Given the low amount of the award, there were no grounds to hold that the enforcement of the judgment had been objectively significant for the applicant. As to subjective significance, the Court attached decisive importance to the fact that the applicant never re-submitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs’ service, even though that had been the only legal avenue for the enforcement of her award. By effectively remaining inactive for more than seven years, the applicant had demonstrated that she had no significant interest in the outcome of the proceedings. Respect for human rights did not require an examination of the merits of the application since the issue of legal assistance in the enforcement of judgments had already been examined in previous cases against Russia. Finally, the Court was satisfied that the applicant’s complaint had been examined before two levels of domestic jurisdiction and that the facts of her case taken as a whole did not disclose a denial of justice. Conclusion : inadmissible (unanimously).   © 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