CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 mai 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. 97 May 2007 Dunayev v. Russia - 70142/01 Judgment 24.5.2007 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Refusal, without any plausible explanation, of permission to lodge detailed appeal submissions: violation   Facts : The applicant brought civil proceedings against the Ministries of Finance and Defence for compensation for property in Grozny that had been destroyed during an attack by federal forces. His claim was dismissed at first instance. He then lodged a preliminary notice of appeal with the appellate court and indicated that he would lodge detailed submissions later. According to the applicant, he attempted to lodge his detailed submissions both on the day before the hearing of his appeal and at the hearing itself, but was refused permission. This was contested by the Government. Law : The parties disagreed as to whether the appellate court had accepted and examined the applicant's detailed appeal submissions. The copy produced by the Government did not bear an official stamp or any other formal mark to indicate that they had been registered and accepted for examination. In fact, it was marked “refused” and bore a signature resembling that of the presiding judge, which clearly could not imply acceptance. The refusal to accept the full appeal submissions constituted a restriction on the applicant's right of access to a court for which the Government had provided no plausible explanation. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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