CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 décembre 2016

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 203 January 2017 Chigirinova v. Russia (dec.) - 28448/16 Decision 13.12.2016 [Section III] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Failure to use new cassation appeal procedure introduced by Code of Administrative Procedure: inadmissible Facts – The Code of Administrative Procedure, which entered into force on 15   September 2015, enables cassation and supervisory-review appeals to be brought before the Supreme Court of Russia against the final decisions of the administrative courts. Before the European Court the applicant complained under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 about a local authority’s refusal to sell her a plot of land. She did not lodge an application for cassation review with the Supreme Court in the domestic proceedings and the question therefore arose as to whether she had exhausted domestic remedies. Law – Article 35 §   1: The cassation and supervisory-review proceedings under the Code of Administrative Procedure concerning disputes involving public authorities were very similar to the cassation and supervisory-review proceedings in place under the Code of Civil Procedure. In particular, the second cassation appeal before the Supreme Court allowed potential applicants to submit their grievances to the highest judicial body of the Russian Federation, which would have an adequate opportunity to consider and remedy any alleged violation of the Convention at the domestic level prior to examination of the case by the Court. The Court therefore considered it appropriate to apply its conclusions in Abramyan and Others ((dec.), 38951/13 and 59611/13, 12   May 2015, Information Note   186 ), which concerned the effectiveness of cassation appeals and supervisory-review in civil proceedings before the Supreme Court, to the present case. Accordingly, an application for cassation review before the Supreme Court constituted an effective remedy capable of also providing redress and requiring exhaustion under the Code of Administrative Procedure.* Since the applicant had not lodged an application for cassation review with the Supreme Court she had not exhausted domestic remedies. Conclusion : inadmissible (failure to exhaust domestic remedies). (See also Sakhanov v. Russia (dec.), 16559/16, 18   October 2016, Information Note   201 ) *     The Court noted, however, that supervisory review under the Code of Administrative Procedure could not be seen as an effective remedy within the meaning of Article   35 of the Convention.   © 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