CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 août 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. 144 August-September 2011 Ladygin v. Russia (dec.) - 35365/05 Decision 30.8.2011 [Section I] Article 35 Article 35-3-b No significant disadvantage Domestic courts’ refusal to examine claim lacking any basis under domestic law: inadmissible   Facts – After being ejected from a court waiting room by an usher for trying to jump a queue, the applicant sought to bring a claim for damages. The district court, however, declined jurisdiction on the grounds that the applicant’s allegation that the usher had abused his powers was a matter for the prosecutor’s office (which had, in fact, already established that the usher’s actions were lawful). In his application to the European Court, the applicant complained that he had been denied access to court, contrary to Article   6 §   1 of the Convention. Law – Article   35 §   3   (b): The complaint was considered in the light of the admissibility criteria introduced by Protocol No.   14 to the Convention, namely whether the applicant had suffered any significant disadvantage by the alleged breach, whether respect for human rights required examination of the case and whether the case had been duly considered by a domestic tribunal. On the first of these points the Court strongly doubted that the applicant was entitled under domestic law to bring a civil claim against the usher or, therefore, that his right of access to a court had been restricted in any way. However, even assuming it had been, there was nothing to suggest that any such limitation had had any serious adverse effect on his life. The applicant’s subjective perception that he had not been treated fairly was insufficient to conclude that he had suffered a significant disadvantage. Such a subjective perception had to be justifiable on objective grounds, which did not exist in this instance. As to the second criterion, given the nature of the applicant’s case, there were no compelling reasons to warrant its examination on the merits. Finally, as regards the third and final criterion, the notion “duly considered by a domestic tribunal” could not be interpreted as obliging the State to examine the merits of any claim brought before domestic courts no matter how frivolous. The applicant did not appear ever to have substantiated his claim or to have adduced any evidence that could arguably constitute a factual basis for his claim in damages. Accordingly, since the claim clearly had no basis in national law, the last criterion under Article 35 § 3 (b) was also satisfied. Conclusion : inadmissible (no significant disadvantage).   © 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