CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 octobre 2006

.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. 90 October 2006 Khamidov v. Russia (dec.) - 72118/01 Decision 23.10.2006 [Section V] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Temporary suspension of courts in Chechnya owing to a counter-terrorist operation: admissible   The applicant alleges that from 1999 to 2002 federal police units participating in a military operation in Chechnya temporarily occupied and damaged real property belonging to him and others.It took him 15   months to get access to a court to bring eviction proceedings as the functioning of the courts in Chechnya was suspended owing to a counter-terrorist operation. It took him a further 16 months to have a court order against the police enforced. His claim for compensation in respect of property damage to the property was rejected, the court having found that he had failed to prove the fact that the property had been occupied and damaged by the police. He complains under Article   8 of the Convention that the occupation of his property infringed his right to respect for his home and his private and family life. He further complains under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 that his possessions were de facto expropriated by the federal police; that the length of the enforcement proceedings was excessive; and that even though the police had severely damaged his property he had been unable to obtain any compensation in this respect. The applicant also complains under Article   6 of the Convention, in particular that   he had no access to a court between October 1999 and January 2001; that the enforcement proceedings had been too lengthy; and that   the domestic courts made arbitrary findings in contradiction with the facts of the case. Lastly, the applicant complains under Article   13 that the domestic remedies were ineffective in his case. Admissible under Article   8 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as well as under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention (concerning the inability to file a claim in courts on the territory of Chechnya between October 1999 and January 2001, the enforcement delay and the alleged defects in the proceedings for damages).   © 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