CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 27 juillet 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s1ED9948 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } 591 27.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar Decision on admissibility   Korolev (II) v. Russia (application no. 25551/05)     APPLICATION CONCERNING A CLAIM FOR LESS THAN 1 EURO INADMISSIBLE   Unanimously   Application inadmissible     Principal facts   The applicant, Vladimir Korolev is a Russian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Orenburg, Russia. He sued the Head of the Passport and Visa Department at the Regional Directorate of the Interior for preventing him from having access to documents related to a delay in issuing his new foreign passport. The courts found in Mr Korolev’s favour and ordered that access be given to him to all documents and materials related to the issuing of his passport and that he be paid 22.50 Russian Roubles (equivalent to less than one euro) in compensation for court fees.   While it is not clear from the file when and whether access was given to Mr Korolev to the documents in question, all his subsequent actions were solely aimed at recovering the 22.50   Roubles. In July 2002, a writ of execution was issued to him and in April 2003 the bailiffs started the enforcement proceedings in order to have the amount due paid to him. When a few months later Mr Korolev challenged in court the bailiffs’ inactivity, his complaint was dismissed as unsubstantiated.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Mr Korolev complained about the failure of the Russian authorities to pay him the 22.50   Roubles awarded by the domestic courts. He relied on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and on Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (right to the protection of property).   The application was lodged on 27 July 2004.   The decision on admissibility was given by a Chamber composed of seven judges:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President, Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar.     Decision of the Court   The Court found it appropriate to examine at the outset whether Mr Korolev’s complaint complied with the new admissibility criterion, introduced with the entry into force of Protocol No. 14 to the Convention on 1 June 2010 , which provided that applications were inadmissible where “ the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage, unless respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits and provided that no case may be rejected on this ground which has not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal ”.   Significant disadvantage   The Court examined firstly whether the applicant had suffered any significant disadvantage. It bore in mind that the purpose of the new admissibility criterion was to enable more rapid disposal by the Court of unmeritorious cases and thus to allow it to concentrate on its central mission of providing legal protection of human rights at European level. As regards the term “significant disadvantage”, the Court noted that it could not be given an exhaustive definition, and it was up to the Court to establish objective criteria for the application of the new rule.   The Court then observed that a violation of a right, however real from a purely legal point of view, had to attain a minimum level of severity to warrant consideration by an international court. The assessment of that minimum level was relative and depended on all the circumstances of the case. The Court was struck by the fact that Mr Korolev’s grievances had been explicitly limited to the failure to pay him a sum equivalent to less than a euro. The Court accepted that even a modest financial award might be significant for some people because of their personal circumstances or the economic situation of the country or region in which they lived. However, less than one euro was clearly of negligible value and of minimal significance for Mr Korolev.   Conscious that a violation of the Convention might concern an important question of principle and thus cause a significant disadvantage without affecting pecuniary interest, the Court noted that Mr Korolev had only complained of the failure to pay him less than a euro in dues. He had not complained of his legitimate right to consult his file at the Passport and Visa Department, nor had he challenged the execution of the domestic court judgment as regards his access to that file.   The Court therefore concluded that Mr Korolev had not suffered a significant disadvantage.   Respect for human rights   The Court found that respect for human rights did not require an examination of Mr Korolev’s application on the merits. The Court recalled that it had decided on many previous occasions claims concerning the non-execution of domestic judicial decisions in Russia and the need for adoption of general measures to prevent future violations stemming from non-execution. An examination on the merits of Mr Korolev’ claim would not add anything new, and was consequently not necessary.   Consideration by a domestic tribunal   Lastly, the Court held that the purpose of its examination of whether Mr Korolev’s case had been duly considered by a domestic tribunal was part of its objective to ensure that every case was judicially appraised so as to avoid cases of denial of justice. It noted that Mr Korolev’s case had been considered at two levels of domestic jurisdiction and his claims had been granted; his subsequent complaints having been rejected for non-compliance with domestic procedural requirements. Consequently, there had been due judicial consideration of his case at national level.   The Court, having examined Mr Korolev’s application in the light of the three conditions established by the new admissibility criterion, declared it inadmissible.   ****   The decision is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The decision is accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08 or Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.