CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 janvier 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 60 January 2004 Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.) - 31697/03 Decision 29.1.2004 [Section I] Article 35 Article 35-1 Six month period Final domestic decision Request for supervisory review of judgment: inadmissible Facts – The applicant, who is of Georgian ethnic origin, and two other persons were charged with murder. He was sentenced to 7   years’ imprisonment, whilst the other co-accused, both of Russian origin, received lighter sentences. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal, but the Supreme Court upheld the judgment. He subsequently submitted a complaint for supervisory review of the judgment to the Presidium of the Supreme Court, which was refused. His complaint to the Court is on grounds of discrimination. Inadmissible under Article 35 – As supervisory review was more akin to a retrial and could be lodged at any time after a judgment became enforceable, if such a procedure were admitted as a remedy for the purposes of Article 35 it 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 judgment of the Supreme Court in the cassation appeal, which implied the application was 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