CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 juin 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. 142 June 2011 Zylkov v. Russia - 5613/04 Judgment 21.6.2011 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Refusal of Russian courts to examine a claim against Russian authorities concerning the interpretation of Russian law: violation   Facts – The applicant was a Russian national with permanent residence in Vilnius, Lithuania. In 2003 he applied for a child allowance payable by the Russian Federation to parents with minor children. He lodged his claim with the social-security division of the Russian Embassy in Vilnius, but it was refused on the grounds that he was ineligible for the allowance. The applicant sought to challenge that decision before a district court in Moscow, but that court declared his claim inadmissible, finding that he should have lodged his claim with a court in Lithuania. Law – Article 6 § 1: The district court had refused to consider the claim lodged by the applicant, a Russian national, against a Russian State authority, incorporated under the laws of Russia, suggesting that the matter was subject to the jurisdiction of a court in Lithuania. The Government had supported that view. The Court, however, was not convinced by that line of reasoning, in particular since the Russian courts had failed to refer to any law binding on the Lithuanian courts that made them competent to resolve the matter or to explain how their view that the matter was to be considered by a foreign court complied with the principles of international law on State immunity. Moreover, the Russian authorities had advised the applicant to apply to a foreign court without even considering whether such an act would be feasible in view of the relevant provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the existing agreement between Russia and Lithuania. The Court concluded that such a situation amounted to a denial of justice, which impaired the very essence of the applicant’s right of access to a court. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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