CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 octobre 2007

.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. 101 October 2007 Sammut and Visa Investments limited v. Malta - 27023/03 Decision 16.10.2007 [Section IV] Article 35 Article 35-4 Rejection of application at any stage of the proceedings Re-examination by the Court of its own motion of a preliminary objection after it had already declared the application admissible: inadmissible   The applicants are a private company and its director. They complained that a new building permit had been issued which modified the building specifications fixed initially, thus frustrating their expectations of developing the site in conformity with the plans previously accepted. In its decision of 28 June 2005 the European Court dismissed the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and declared the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 admissible. Inadmissible : Under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention, the Court could reject an application at any stage of the proceedings. This provision allowed the Court, even during the examination at the merits stage, and subject to compliance with Rule 55 of the Rules of Court, to review a decision declaring an application admissible, if it was of the view that it should have been considered inadmissible for any of the reasons enumerated in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the same Article. In their further observations on the merits, after the complaint had been declared admissible, the Government had not insisted on their non-exhaustion plea and had not provided any further details on this matter. However, the raising of the non-exhaustion plea before the Court during the admissibility stage sufficed to satisfy the requirements of Article 35 § 4 in so far as they were conditioned by Rule 55. Consequently, nothing prevented the Court from re-examining the non-exhaustion issue of its own motionat that stage of the proceedings and after it had requested and received the parties’ complementary observations on the matter. Upon re-examination, the Court found that the applicants had had effective remedies of which they could have availed themselves within the meaning of the Convention and therefore upheld the Government’s objection: non-exhaustion of 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