CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 mai 2011

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 No. 144 August-September 2011 Sabri Güneş v. Turkey (referral) - 27396/06 Judgment 24.5.2011 [Section II] Article 35 Article 35-1 Six month period Calculation of time-limit when final day is not a working day: case referred to the Grand Chamber The dies ad quem , that is the day on which the six-month period expired, was a Sunday. The applicant therefore lodged his application with the European Court on the first working day thereafter, namely the Monday. In a judgment of 24   May 2011 a Chamber of the Court noted, firstly, that the Government had not relied on failure to comply with the six-month period. However, that was a matter of public policy and the Court had jurisdiction to apply it of its own motion. It considered that the applicant could not be criticised for having lodged his application on the first working day following the Sunday, in accordance with domestic law and practice. Consequently, it was more consistent with the object and purpose of Article   35 to conclude that the six-month period should be extended to the first working day thereafter. The time-limit had therefore been complied with. Accordingly, the Court concluded, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1. On 15   September 2011 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the request of the Government.   © 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