Information Note on the Court’s case-law 6

May 1999

Kucherenko v. Ukraine (dec.) - 41974/98

Decision 4.5.1999 [Section IV]

Article 35

Article 35-1

Exhaustion of domestic remedies

Effective domestic remedy

Extraordinary remedy dependent on the discretionary power of a public authority: inadmissible

The applicant, who was found guilty of an armed attack in which two people were killed, was sentenced to death. The S upreme Court confirmed that verdict on 7 August 1997. On February 1998 the applicant applied to the Supreme Court for a review of the decisions in his case. That application was declared inadmissible in a letter of 9 April 1998.

Inadmissible under Articles 6 and 3. The date on which the Convention came into force with regard to Ukraine and Ukraine’s declaration of acceptance of the right of individual petition took effect was 11 September 1997. The last decision in the applicant’s case was the Supreme Court ’s judgment of 7 August 1997 – before the Convention came into force with regard to Ukraine and Ukraine’s declaration of acceptance of the right of individual petition took effect. As to the application which the Supreme Court declared inadmissible on 9 Ap ril 1998, it should be noted that this procedure for seeking a review of a final judicial decision can be used only by the public prosecutor or the president of the court which gave the decision to be reviewed or the latter’s deputies. The applicant was no t entitled to employ it and it therefore constituted an extraordinary remedy, not a remedy to be exhausted pursuant to Article 35 § 1. Hence, it cannot be taken into account in determining whether the Court has jurisdiction ratione tempori : incompatible r atione temporis .

© 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