CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 octobre 2004

.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 } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 68 October 2004 Schneider v. Germany (dec.) - 44842/98 Decision 14.10.2004 [Section III] Article 37 Article 37-2 Restore to list Absence of circumstances justifying restoration of a struck out application to the list of cases The applicant requested the restoration to the list of cases of an application that had been lodged by his lawyer in 1998 and which was struck out of the list in 2001. This striking-out had been decided on the basis of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, since the applicant’s representative had failed to submit his observations in the case, despite reminders to that effect. In 2004 the applicant applied to the Court asking that examination of the application be resumed and claiming that he himself had been informed of the striking-out only a few days previously. Decision not to restore the application to the list : The applicant explained that, when his application was lodged in 1998, his former representative had informed him in writing that the proceedings before the Court could take a certain time and that he would keep the applicant informed of progress in the case; his lawyer had then left the chambers where he worked without informing him; finally, the applicant had been imprisoned until October 2000 and subsequently experienced personal problems. The applicant considered that this explained why he had not taken steps on his own initiative to remain informed of the state of proceedings before the Court. In the Court’s opinion, this could not justify the fact that the applicant had only been able to obtain information about the state of his application more than three years after his release from prison. In addition, the applicant had not been in prison when the case had been struck out of the list. In short, the applicant had failed to display the diligence which one might expect from him in ensuring that his interests were defended before the Court.   © 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