CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 novembre 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 } .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 212 November 2017 Cherednichenko and Others v. Russia - 35082/13, 63216/13, 31766/15 et al. Judgment 7.11.2017 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Uncertainty regarding starting point of time-limit for appeals in absence of system identifying date when impugned decision was available: violation Facts – The five applicants wished to appeal against a decision by a district court. With one exception, they all filed their notice and/or grounds of appeal, which were declared out of time. However, the starting point for lodging an appeal was interpreted in different ways at national level: it was either the date on which a short form of the decision was read out at the hearing, or the date on which the full text of the decision was finalised by the judge, or the date on which the finalised decision was filed with the court’s registry, or the date on which a copy of the decision was received through the post. The applicants complained of a breach of their right of access to a court, on the grounds that, as a result of allegedly incorrect application of the procedural rules, their appeals had been declared inadmissible as being out of time. Law – Article 6 § 1: The problem in question was the result of a systemic shortcoming arising from the absence, at domestic level, of a uniform system that would make it possible to establish in an objective manner the date from which the full text of the decision was available to the parties to the dispute, given that that date triggered the time-limit within which an appeal could be lodged. The national authorities could remedy the situation by correcting this defect in the procedural law. Nonetheless, in the absence of such a system, the Court accepted as the starting point of the time-limit for lodging an appeal the dates indicated by the applicants, unless the Government could prove the contrary. It followed that three of the applicants had exercised their right of appeal within the time-limit allowed, from the date on which they had effectively received a full copy of the judicial decisions. By rejecting their appeals as out of time, the domestic courts had given an excessively formalistic interpretation of the domestic law, with the result that the applicants had had imposed on them an obligation that they were unable to meet, even with particular diligence. Given the seriousness of the penalty imposed on the applicants for failure to comply with the time-limits calculated in this way, the contested measure had not been proportionate to the aim of ensuring judicial certainty and the proper administration of justice. With regard to another applicant, the failure to notify the text of the decision had deprived him of his right of access to the appeal court. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 2,500 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See also Ivanova and Ivashova v.   Russia , 797/14 and 67755/14, 26   January 2017, Information Note   203 )   © 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