CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 octobre 2005

.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. 79 October 2005 MPP Golub v. Ukraine (dec.) - 6778/05 Decision 18.10.2005 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Higher Commercial Court’s refusal to admit cassation appeals which had not been filed in accordance with the Code of Commercial Procedure: inadmissible   Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Cassation appeals to the Higher Commercial Court and the Supreme Court considered effective remedies in commercial-law cases: inadmissible   The applicant company was involved in commercial-law litigation resulting in judgments by a regional commercial court and a regional commercial court of appeal. The company eventually challenged a judgment of the latter court by filing a cassation appeal directly with the Higher Commercial Court. This appeal was rejected as it should have been lodged through the first instance or appellate court which had considered the case and where the case file was. The court relied on Article 109 of the Code of Commercial Procedure. The Higher Commercial Court rejected the company‘s further cassation appeal as it had been lodged outside the one-month time-limit allowed for the introduction of such appeals (Article 110 of the Code of Commercial Procedure) and as the incorrect introduction of a cassation appeal could not suspend that time-limit. The Supreme Court rejected the company’s further cassation appeal. The Court noted that the exercise of a cassation appeal to the Higher Commercial Court as well as of any subsequent cassation appeal to the Supreme Court does not depend on the discretionary power of a State authority. Such appeals must nevertheless be lodged within one month and be transmitted through the lower court in question. As the applicant company had failed to lodge its cassation appeals in accordance with domestic law their rejection had not been arbitrary and undoubtedly had served the purpose of ensuring the proper administration of justice. Manifestly ill-founded .   © 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