Search
document

Document text Analytics

KUZMIN v. ESTONIA

Doc ref: 35648/97 • ECHR ID: 001-4341

Document date: July 1, 1998

Inbound citations: 3
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 2

KUZMIN v. ESTONIA

Doc ref: 35648/97 • ECHR ID: 001-4341

Document date: July 1, 1998

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 35648/97

by Viktor KUZMIN

against Estonia

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 1 July 1998, the following members being present:

MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President

N. BRATZA

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs J. LIDDY

MM L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs M. HION

Mr R. NICOLINI

Mrs M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 12 December 1996

by Viktor KUZMIN and registered on 17 April 1997 under file

No. 35648/97;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Russian citizen, born in 1932. He resides in

Tallinn, Estonia.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant be

summarised as follows.

By judgment of 12 April 1995 the Tallinn City Court ("Tallinna

Linnakohus") dismissed the applicant's claim to be reinstated in

service and granted compensation as a result of his dismissal from the

Estonian Shipping Company ("Eesti Merelaevandus"). On 31 August 1995

the Tallinn Court of Appeal ("Tallinna Ringkonnakohus") confirmed the

judgment of the first instance court. The applicant filed a cassation

complaint, which according to procedural requirements must be lodged

with the Court of Appeal, but failed to submit it within the prescribed

time limit, i.e. within 10 days from the day following the receipt of

the court judgment by the applicant on 5 October 1995. By decree of

29 December 1995 the Tallinn Court of Appeal rejected his request for

a renewal of the time limit as the applicant had given no compelling

reason for missing the deadline. On 14 February 1996 the Supreme Court

refused to grant leave to appeal against the decree.

The applicant subsequently attempted to re-open the proceedings,

but the Appeal Application Panel of the Supreme Court ("Riigikohtu

Loakogu") refused leave to appeal by its unmotivated resolution of

5 June 1996. The applicant claims that due to a change in his address

he was notified of the refusal only on 5 September 1996.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that

the decision of the Appeal Application Panel of 5 June 1996 prevented

him from having his case reviewed by the Supreme Court. He complains

that the proceedings before the Appeal Application Panel were not fair

and public and that its decision was unmotivated.

THE LAW

Invoking Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, the applicant

complains that he was denied review of his case by the Supreme Court

and that the Appeal Application Panel did not examine his complaint in

a fair and public hearing and that its decision was unmotivated.

Article 6 para. 1 first sentence (Art. 6-1) of the Convention

provides:

"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or

of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a

fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an

independent and impartial tribunal established by law..."

The Commission observes that the applicant's complaint relates

to the proceedings concerning his petition for a re-opening of his

case. In this respect, the Commission recalls its constant case-law

that the provision of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention

does not oblige States to allow individuals the opportunity of having

their case re-opened once the judgment has become final (No. 24469/94,

Dec. 2.12.94, D.R. 79, p. 141; No. 7761/77, Dec. 8.5.78, D.R. 14,

p. 171). The Commission further recalls that the provision is not

applicable to proceedings which determine whether the case in civil

matter is to be re-opened or not (No. 7761/77, Dec. 8.5.78, D.R. 14,

p. 171).

It follows that Article 6 (Art. 6) does not apply to the

proceedings in which the Appeal Application Panel of the Supreme Court

of Estonia refused the applicant leave to appeal regarding the re-

opening of his case. This complaint is thus incompatible ratione

materiae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of

Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant