CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 novembre 1999

.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 12 November 1999 Moya Alvarez v. Spain (dec.) - 44677/98 Decision 23.11.1999 [Section I] Article 35 Article 35-1 Six-month period Final domestic decision Appeal exercised exclusively by the public prosecutor: inadmissible After being injured in a road traffic accident, the applicant brought a civil action in damages. The court of first instance dismissed his claims in a decision of 20 June 1994. The court of appeal gave its decision on the case on 19 December 1995. In a judgment of 20 May 1996, which was served on the applicant on 23   May 1996, the Constitutional Court dismissed his amparo appeal. On 9 December 1996 the Constitutional Court found that the time allowed to the public prosecutor's office to lodge a suplica appeal against the judgment of 20 May 1996 had expired and that that decision had therefore become unappealable. The applicant was informed on 13 December 1996. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: the nature of suplica appeals and the conditions for their validity, in particular, the fact that only the public prosecutor's office had the right to lodge such appeals, meant that they did not constitute a remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The relevant final decision of the domestic courts was therefore the judgment of the Constitutional Court of 20 May 1996, which had been served on 23 May 1996. The application was not lodged until 26 November 1998, that is more than six months after the final decision of the domestic courts. It was therefore 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