CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 novembre 2010

.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. 135 November 2010 Dudek v. Germany (dec.) - 12977/09, 15856/09, 15890/09 et al. Decision 23.11.2010 [Section V] Article 35 Article 35-3 Abuse of the right of petition Length-of-proceedings complaints in small-claims cases by litigious applicant: inadmissible   Facts – In his application to the European Court, the applicant complained under Articles   6 and   13 of the Convention about the length of proceedings he had issued against a dentist’s association in the domestic courts for sums ranging from between EUR   70 and EUR   300. Law – Article 35 § 3: In view of the pettiness of the sums involved, the Court had to determine whether the complaints were admissible under this provision as amended by Protocol No. 14. The applications could not be dismissed under the new – no significant disadvantage – requirement as, in the absence of an effective domestic remedy against the excessive length of civil proceedings under German law, the case had not been “duly considered by a domestic tribunal”. As to whether the applications amounted to an abuse of the right of individual application, the Court considered that its approach in its decision in Bock v.   Germany (no.   22051/07, 19   January 2010, Information Note no.   125) remained applicable following the entry into force of Protocol No.   14 as the wording of Article 35 §   3 clearly established that the new requirement was an alternative to and not a replacement of the other inadmissibility criteria. The High Contracting Parties clearly wished the Court to devote more time to cases warranting consideration on the merits, whether seen from the perspective of the legal interest of the individual applicant or considered from the broader perspective of the law of the Convention and the European public order to which it contributed, and had invited it to give full effect to the new admissibility criterion and to consider other possibilities of applying the principle de minimis non curat praetor . The criteria for abuse of the right of individual application as established in Bock had been met: firstly, no important questions of principle had been involved; secondly, the applicant’s conduct of the litigation was not beyond reproach (he had a tendency to issue proceedings in parallel, to lodge voluminous submissions out of time and to make wholly disproportionate claims); and, lastly, the length-of-proceedings issue had already been dealt with by the Court in numerous cases, including cases against the respondent Government. Conclusion : inadmissible (abuse of the right of individual application).   © 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