CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 mai 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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. 86 May 2006 Kerechashvili v. Georgia (dec.) - 5667/02 Decision 2.5.2006 [Section II] Article 35 Article 35-3 Abuse of the right of petition Failure of applicant to inform the Court of the execution in full of a judicial decision whose non‑enforcement is the subject of his complaint: inadmissible The applicant had obtained an enforceable judicial decision against his former employer awarding him a sum of money in respect of unpaid amounts. The applicant complained before the Court that the decision had not been executed. Inadmissible under Article 6(1) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The applicant had complained before the Court of his complete inability to secure the execution of the decision; in fact, the decision had been executed in part more than a year before the applicant had made his application to the Court. It had then been executed in full while the application was pending before the Court prior to being examined. The applicant had failed to inform the Court of this fact either before or after the application was communicated. In the Court’s view, the applicant had thereby attempted to conceal the fact that even before he had applied to the Court, the authorities had honoured their obligations by paying him approximately half the amount in question and the fact that, well before his application had been communicated to the respondent Government, the court bailiff had taken the necessary steps to ensure that the rest of the debt was paid. The Court therefore held that the applicant had abused his right of petition.   © 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