CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 octobre 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. 145 October 2011 Vasylenko v. Ukraine (dec.) - 25129/03 Decision 18.10.2011 [Section V] Article 35 Article 35-3 Abuse of the right of petition Lack of fair trial complaint concerning a token fine: inadmissible   Facts – The applicant was fined approximately EUR   3 for a speeding offence. The proceedings were conducted in his absence, despite the fact that he had been allegedly notified of the hearing date. Law – Article 35 § 3: The no significant disadvantage criterion was inapplicable as it was not introduced until after the applicant’s case had already been declared admissible. However, the Court had ruled in Bock v. Germany * that there could be an abuse of the right of application to an international tribunal where the amount at stake was small. Since under Article 35 §   4 of the Convention the Court could reject an application at any stage of the proceedings and the Government had raised the issue in their submissions, the Court was able to reconsider the admissibility of the applicant’s case. In that connection, it noted that the impugned proceedings had borne no pecuniary or non-pecuniary importance for the applicant and that the issue of proper notification of court hearings had already been examined in a number of cases against Ukraine. Given the pettiness of the amount of the fine and the Court’s overload with a large number of cases raising serious human-rights issues, it was appropriate to reject the applicant’s complaint as an abuse of the right of application. Conclusion : inadmissible (abuse of the right of individual application). * Bock v. Germany (dec.), no. 22051/07, 19   January 2010, Information Note no.   126.   © 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