CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 janvier 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. 115 January 2009 Sapeyan v. Armenia - 35738/03 Judgment 13.1.2009 [Section III] Article 35 Article 35-1 Six month period Effect of intervening extraordinary remedy on six-month time-limit: running of time interrupted only in relation to Convention issues examined by review body   In his application on 28 August 2003 the applicant raised various complaints in connection with his conviction by a district court more than six months earlier (on 26   February 2003). The district court's decision was final and the applicant had no further sufficiently accessible and effective remedies, including extraordinary remedies, to exhaust. He nevertheless submitted an appeal to the criminal and military court of appeal whose president decided on 2 March 2003 to review the district court's decision and reduce the sentence. In order to determine whether the applicant's complaints complied with the six-month time-limit imposed by Article 35 of the Convention, the European Court had to decide whether the court of appeal's decision in the extraordinary proceedings had restarted the running of the six-month period. Inadmissible, except for Article 11 complaint : Decisions rejecting a request to reopen the domestic proceedings would not normally be considered “final decisions” for the purpose of calculating the starting point for the running of the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. However, the position might be different if the request to reopen the proceedings was, in fact, successful. This did not mean that the mere fact of reopening proceedings would automatically restart the running of the six-month period, as it could not be excluded that a case would be reopened on grounds unrelated to the applicant's Convention complaints. Accordingly, in cases where proceedings were reopened or a final decision was reviewed, the running of the six-month period would be interrupted only in relation to those Convention issues which served as a ground for such reopening or review and were the object of examination before the extraordinary appeal body. Of the applicant's complaints to the European Court, the only one that had been raised, either explicitly or in substance, in his extraordinary appeal was of the alleged unlawfulness of the interference with his right to freedom of assembly. The remaining complaints had not been the object of examination by the court of appeal and the grounds on which that court decided to review the final decision of the district court could not be seen as in any way related to them. Accordingly, the court of appeal's extraordinary review of the final decision of the district court did not restart the running of the six-month period in respect of those complaints: out of time . Different considerations applied to the Article 11 complaint, as even if it had been pursued through an extraordinary remedy which the Court had previously found to be ineffective, the request for review had actually led to the re-examination of his case on that particular ground and a new decision on the merits: admissible .   © 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