THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 8294/15 Tatyana Aleksandrovna ISTRATOVA against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1 September 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková , President, Dmitry Dedov , Gilberto Felici , judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 February 2015,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Tatyana Aleksandrovna Istratova , is a Russian national, who was born in 1981 and lives in Reutov . She was represented before the Court by Mr D.B. Voloshchuk , a lawyer practising in Moscow.

The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin , Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

Between 2 July 2005 and 8 July 2013 the applicant was married to Mr I. Mr I. possessed a euro bank account containing 18,640.81 euros (EUR ) .

On 8 July 2013 the applicant divorced Mr I. Afterwards Mr I. and she initiated civil proceedings to separate their common property.

On 8 August 2014 the Reutov Town Court of the Moscow Region held that the applicant was entitled to half the sum in the above-mentioned euro bank account and awarded her 9,320.40 Russian roubles (RUB).

The applicant lodged an appeal, stating that the court had erred in the awarded sum. She alleged that the judge had incorrectly converted the amount in euros into roubles. She referred to a bank statement from the account confirming her allegation.

On 13 October 2014 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the decision of 8 August 2014, holding that the first-instance court had correctly established the facts of the case and had divided the sum in Mr I. ’ s account in accordance with the Family Code. It did not analyse the applicant ’ s argument relating to the error.

On 16 April 2015 the Moscow Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s cassation appeal, stating that the decision of 8 August 2014 could not be quashed on the ground of an error in currency as it constituted a typographical error.

On 15 May 2015 the Reutov Town Court corrected the error in the judgment of 8 August 2014 by changing the currency name from roubles to euros.

On 7 July 2016 a writ of enforcement for EUR 9,320.40 was issued.

On 12 July 2016 Mr T., the applicant ’ s representative, received the writ of enforcement.

Article 200 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a court may, on its own initiative or at the request of a party to the proceedings, correct typographical or other obvious arithmetical errors.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention of the flagrantly and manifestly arbitrary decision of the domestic courts in her case.

THE LAW

The applicant alleged a violation of her right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention.

The Government submitted that the error by the domestic courts in the designation of currency had been corrected. The applicant and her lawyer had learnt about this on 12 July 2016 at the latest, when the applicant ’ s lawyer had received the writ of enforcement with the sum in euros. Therefore, the violation had been remedied at domestic level. Having regard to the applicant ’ s failure to inform the Court about this fact, they considered that the applicant had abused her right of petition and asked the Court to declare her application inadmissible.

The applicant argued that the judicial measures taken in her case did not contain any acknowledgment of a violation and, hence, the matter had not been resolved.

The Court observes that pursuant to Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court, applicants must keep the Court informed of all circumstances relevant to the application. It further notes that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of application under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria , no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1) , no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; Predescu v. Romania , no. 21447/03, §§ 24-27, 2 December 2008; Řehák v. Czech Republic ( dec. ), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; Kérétchachvili v. Georgia ( dec. ), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006 ).

Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Poznanski and Others v. Germany ( dec. ), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007, and Hadrabová and Others v. the Czech Republic ( dec. ), nos. 42165/02 and 466/03, 25 September 2007).

In the present case, since 12 July 2016 at the latest, the applicant has been aware of the fact that the error in the judgment complained of had been corrected. The Government were given notice of the case on 9 March 2018. The applicant did not inform the Court about this fact either before or after that date.

The applicant, who was represented by legal counsel in the domestic proceedings and in the proceedings before the Court, has not convincingly and plausibly explained why she did not inform the Court about the changes in her case (see Červeňáková v. the Czech Republic ( dec. ), no. 26852/09, 23 October 2012).

Having regard to the importance of the information in issue for the proper determination of the present case, the Court finds that the applicant ’ s conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual petition, as provided for in Article 34 of the Convention.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to reject the application as a whole as an abuse of the right of application pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 24 September 2020 .

Olga Chernishova Alena Poláčková Deputy Registrar President