Information Note on the Court’s case-law 203

January 2017

Chigirinova v. Russia (dec.) - 28448/16

Decision 13.12.2016 [Section III]

Article 35

Article 35-1

Exhaustion of domestic remedies

Effective domestic remedy

Failure to use new cassation appeal procedure introduced by Code of Administrative Procedure: inadmissible

Facts – The Code of Administrative Procedure, which entered into force on 15 September 2015 , enables cassation and supervisory-review appeals to be brought before the Supreme Court of Russia against the final decisions of the administrative courts.

Before the European Court the applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about a local authority’s refusal to sell her a plot of land. She did not lodge an application for cassation review with the Supreme Court in the domestic proceedings and the question therefore arose as to whether she had exhausted domestic remedies.

Law – Article 35 § 1: The cassation and supervisory-review proceedings under the Code of Administrative Procedure concerning disputes involving public authorities were very similar to the cassation and supervisory-review proceedings in place under the Code of Civil Procedu re. In particular, the second cassation appeal before the Supreme Court allowed potential applicants to submit their grievances to the highest judicial body of the Russian Federation, which would have an adequate opportunity to consider and remedy any alle ged violation of the Convention at the domestic level prior to examination of the case by the Court.

The Court therefore considered it appropriate to apply its conclusions in Abramyan and Others ((dec.), 38951/13 and 59611/13, 12 May 2015, Information Note 186 ), which concerned the effectiveness of cassation appeals and supervisory-review in civil proceedings before the Supreme Court, to the present case. Accordingly, an application for cassation rev iew before the Supreme Court constituted an effective remedy capable of also providing redress and requiring exhaustion under the Code of Administrative Procedure.* Since the applicant had not lodged an application for cassation review with the Supreme Cou rt she had not exhausted domestic remedies.

Conclusion : inadmissible (failure to exhaust domestic remedies).

(See also Sakhanov v. Russia (dec.), 16559/16, 18 October 2016, Information Note 201 )

* The Court noted, however, that supervisory review under the Code of Administrative Procedure could not be seen as an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 of the Convention.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by th e Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes