CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 décembre 2011

.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. 147 December 2011 Rozhin v. Russia - 50098/07 Judgment 6.12.2011 [Section I] Article 37 Article 37-1 Striking out applications Unilateral declaration acknowledging breach of right to fair hearing but without undertaking to reopen domestic proceedings: strike out refused   Facts – In his application to the European Court the applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing in proceedings he had brought against the authorities concerning his conditions of detention. The Government lodged a unilateral declaration with the Court acknowledging a breach of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing and offering an ex gratia payment of EUR 500 in just satisfaction. They invited the Court to strike the application out of its list. Law – Article 37 § 1: The Government had acknowledged in their unilateral declaration that the civil proceedings in the applicant’s case had not complied with the requirement of fairness and had offered EUR 500 in settlement. However, they had not undertaken to reopen the domestic proceedings even though the nature of the alleged violation was such that it would not otherwise be possible to eliminate the effects of the infringement of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing. Nor had they undertaken to ensure that any new proceedings would meet all the fairness requirements of Article   6 of the Convention. It was also relevant that the domestic law allowed the reopening of proceedings in the event of a finding of a violation of the Convention, but not where the case was struck out of the list. The Government had thus failed to establish a sufficient basis for a finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols did not require the Court to continue its examination of the case. Conclusion : not struck out (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