CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 mars 2013

.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. 161 March 2013 Chapman v. Belgium (dec.)   - 39619/06 Decision 5.3.2013 [Section V] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Six month period Negative opinion of Court of Cassation lawyer as to chances of success of appeal: remedies exhausted; six-month rule observed   Facts – In a case concerning the jurisdictional immunity of an international organisation, the applicant did not lodge an appeal on points of law after receiving a negative opinion from counsel at the Court of Cassation that there was no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment of the lower court had not been served on the applicant, so the time for lodging such an appeal had not yet started to run. Law – Article 35 § 1: As regards the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the assistance of counsel at the Court of Cassation was mandatory in civil matters. The applicant had consulted counsel with a view to lodging an appeal on points of law and had then followed his negative advice. The time for lodging such an appeal had not yet started to run, as the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s judgment had not been served on the applicant. This case could thereby be distinguished from Van Oosterwijck v.   Belgium , in which the Court had declared an application inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Regard being had, in particular, to the preventive role of the lawyer at the Court of Cassation, in the interest both of that court and of the potential litigants, the applicant had done all that could be reasonably expected of him to exhaust domestic remedies. As a rule, the six-month period ran from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies. Where, however, an applicant availed himself of an apparently existing remedy and only subsequently became aware of circumstances which rendered the remedy ineffective, it might be appropriate for the purposes of Article 35 §   1 to calculate the start of the six-month period from the date when the applicant first became or ought to have become aware of those circumstances. The applicant had initiated the process for the lodging of an appeal on points of law against the judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, but had abandoned that idea after receiving a negative opinion on his prospects of success. The date to be taken into consideration, for the calculation of the six-month period, was thus not 1   February 2005, the date of the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s judgment, which had become the final domestic decision in the case, but 27   March 2006, the date of the opinion by counsel at the Court of Cassation informing the applicant that an appeal on points of law was bound to fail. The six-month rule had therefore been complied with, as the application had been lodged on 18   September 2006. The Court, however, declared inadmissible the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention as being manifestly ill-founded. (See Van Oosterwijck v.   Belgium , no.   7654/76, 6   November 1980)   © 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