CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 juillet 2010

.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. 132 July 2010 Korolev v. Russia (dec.) - 25551/05 Decision 1.7.2010 [Section I] Article 35 Article 35-3-b No significant disadvantage Complaint concerning inability to recover a judgment debt worth less than one euro: inadmissible   Facts – In his application to the European Court, the applicant complained of a failure by a State authority to pay a judgment debt in his favour worth 22.50   Russian roubles (less than one euro) and of the domestic courts’ refusal to consider an application he had lodged complaining of the court bailiffs’ failure to collect the sum. He also alleged various breaches of the domestic procedural requirements by the domestic courts. Law – Article 35 § 3 (b): The new “no significant disadvantage” criterion hinged on the idea that a violation of a right, however real from a purely legal point of view, should attain a minimum level of severity to warrant consideration by an international court. The assessment of this minimum level was, in the nature of things, relative and depended on all the circumstances of the case. The severity of the violation had to be assessed, taking into account both the applicant’s subjective perceptions and what was objectively at stake in the case. In the instant case, the Court was struck by the almost negligible size of the pecuniary loss, which was equivalent to less than one euro. Although even modest pecuniary damage could be significant in the light of an individual’s specific circumstances and the economic climate in which he or she lived, it was beyond any doubt in the present case that the amount at stake was of minimal significance to the applicant. Although it was relevant that the matter may have been an important question of principle for the applicant, that did not suffice for the Court to conclude that he had suffered a significant disadvantage. An applicant’s subjective feeling about the impact of alleged violations had to be justifiable on objective grounds. The Court did not perceive any such justification in the present case. Further, respect for human rights did not require an examination of the application on the merits in the absence of any compelling reason of public order ( ordre public ) warranting such an examination. The Court had on numerous occasions determined analogous issues to that arising in the instant case and ascertained in great detail the States’ Convention obligations in that respect. Both the Court and the Committee of Ministers had addressed the systemic problem of non-enforcement of domestic judgments in the Russian Federation and the need for adoption of general measures to prevent new violations on that account. The Court also found that the requirement for the case to have been duly considered by a domestic tribunal was satisfied. The initial grievances against the State authorities had been considered at two levels of jurisdiction and the applicant’s claims granted. His subsequent complaint about the bailiffs’ failure to recover the judgment debt was rejected for non-compliance with the domestic procedural requirements. That did not constitute a denial of justice imputable to the authorities. Lastly, the fact that domestic law did not grant the applicant a right to judicial review of alleged breaches of procedural requirements once his case had been decided at final instance did not constitute an obstacle for the application of the new admissibility criterion as otherwise the Court would be prevented from rejecting any claim, however insignificant, relating to alleged violations imputable to a final national instance. Such an approach would be neither appropriate nor consistent with the object and purpose of the new provision. Conclusion : inadmissible (no significant disadvantage).   © 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