CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 juin 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 7 June 1999 Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.) - 47033/99 Decision 22.6.1999 [Section III] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Extraordinary remedies depending on discretionary powers: inadmissible In 1996 the applicant brought an action for damages against the company for which she worked. The court initially refused to deal with the action because she had not complied with the procedural requirements and then dismissed her rectified action. In March 1997 the Regional Court upheld this judgment. In June 1997 the Deputy Regional Prosecutor rejected the applicant's application to file an appeal for a supervisory review of the courts' judgments. Further applications for supervisory review were also rejected, the last two by the President of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court and the Deputy Prosecutor General. The applicant was informed of these decisions in letters of 15 June and 14 October respectively. She complains that she did not have a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within a reasonable time. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: The final decision in the case was the judgment of the Regional Court in March 1997, and the complaints therefore relate to the period prior to the date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of Russia (5 May 1998). The applications for supervisory review constitute extraordinary remedies, the use of which depends on discretionary powers, and they do not therefore constitute effective remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1.   © 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