CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 mai 2004

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; 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 64 May 2004 Denisov v. Russia (dec.) - 33408/03 Decision 6.5.2004 [Section I] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Supervisory review procedure: inadmissible The applicant brought proceedings against a local authority. The Town Court, on two occasions, refused to initiate the proceedings unless the applicant accompanied his action with a court fee. This position of the Town Court was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court in December 2002. On an unspecified date, the applicant lodged a supervisory review complaint against these decisions, which was refused. Article 35 § 1: As supervisory review was more akin to a retrial and, once launched, could last indefinitely, to admit such a procedure as a remedy to be exhausted would create uncertainty and render the six-month rule nugatory. The date to take into account in calculating the six-month period was therefore the date of the “final” appeal decision at the cassation level, that is, the decision of the Regional Court of December 2002 (not the date of the decision to refuse supervisory review), which implied the application was out of time. Conclusion : inadmissible (out of time).   © 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