CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 janvier 2017

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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 203 January 2017 Ivanova and Ivashova v. Russia - 797/14 and 67755/14 Judgment 26.1.2017 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Dismissal of appeal as being out of time despite late receipt of impugned decision by appellant: violation Facts – The second applicant, Ms   Ivashova (hereafter, “the applicant”) wished to lodge an appeal against a judgment delivered by a district court. The deadline laid down by domestic law was one month from the date on which the full text of the decision was published. During the hearing at which the first-instance decision was delivered, only the operative provisions were read out. The applicant went to the court registry on numerous occasions to inquire about the availability of the full text, and also submitted written requests. On her first visits, the text had not yet been added to the case file. According to her submissions, the registry then refused to provide her with a full copy of the decision, on the ground that it had already been sent by post; however, the postal delivery arrived too late for her to be able to submit a reasoned appeal. Nonetheless, the applicant made a point of filing a summary statement of appeal within the relevant deadline, explaining that she had not yet been informed of the reasons for the decision. Once in possession of a full copy of the decision, she supplemented her appeal pleadings, but without success. Arguing that the ground for refusing her appeal, namely that it had been lodged out of time, was erroneous, the applicant alleged that there had been a breach of her right of access to a court. Law – Article 6 §   1: The exercise of the right of appeal was only genuinely possible from the point at which the individual concerned could effectively appraise himself or herself of the full version of the decision in question. With regard to the transmission of a full copy of the relevant decision by post, the methods used by the domestic courts when sending out decisions did not enable the Court to verify the date of receipt. However, the applicant had submitted a document corroborating its late receipt. The relevant date of receipt had also been confirmed by the appeal court. In the absence of any system for notifying the parties and informing them that the finalised text was available at the registry, the Court considered that the applicant had taken all reasonable steps to obtain the full text of the decision and to lodge an appeal within the statutory time-limits. Calculating the deadline for lodging an appeal from the date on which the full text of a court’s decision was drawn up by the court’s registry amounted to making expiry of this deadline dependent on a factor that was totally outside the appellant’s control. In other words, dismissing the applicant’s appeal as being out of time resulted from an inflexible interpretation of the domestic legislation, placing an obligation on the applicant with which she had been unable to comply, even by showing special diligence. In view of the seriousness of the consequences for the applicant of failure to comply with the deadline thus calculated, the contested measure had therefore not been proportionate to the aim of guaranteeing legal certainty and the proper administration of justice. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In a similar case concerning the first applicant, Ms   Ivanova, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 §   1, as there was nothing in the file enabling it to depart from the appeal court’s conclusion in this specific case that the first applicant had necessarily been made aware of the relevant decision in good time.   © 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