FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 74691/01
by Anatoliy Nikolayevich DOLGONOSOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15 May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens,
MrG. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 June 2001,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
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, Mr Anatoliy Nikolayevich Dolgonosov, is a Russian national who was born in 1950 and lives in the town of Shakhty, the Rostov Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
It appears that at the relevant time the applicant was a creditor of a private company which had gone bankrupt.
He filed an application against the decision to declare the company bankrupt with the Nazran District Court of the Republic of Ingushetiya (“the District Court”).
According to the applicant, he dispatched the application and supporting documents on 8 January 2000 and they were received by the court on 26 January 2000. The applicant produced a copy of the postal receipt acknowledging that the documents in question were received by the District Court on 26 January 2000.
According to the Government, the application and supporting documents were received by the court on 5 July 2000.
It appears that the first hearing in the case was scheduled for 2 August 2000. It does not appear that any hearings were held between the latter date and February 2002.
Apparently, the court resumed the examination of the case in February 2002.
Between February and July 2002 the court repeatedly summoned the parties. For various reasons the court each time adjourned the hearings.
It appears that the hearings in the case were held on 8 July, 19 and 26 August, 2 and 9 September 2002.
By judgment of 9 September 2002 the District Court examined the applicant’s claims and rejected them as unsubstantiated. The court noted that the decision to declare the private company in question bankrupt had been lawful and justified.
The Supreme Court of the Republic of Ingushetiya upheld the judgment on appeal on 14 November 2002.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the unsuccessful outcome of the proceedings in his case and the denial of access to court by the domestic authorities.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the denial of access to court by the domestic authorities and the unfavourable outcome of the proceedings in his case. He relied on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, which provide, in so far as relevant, as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair hearing by [a] tribunal...”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
The Government submitted that, contrary to the applicant’s allegations, he had had access to court and that the domestic courts carefully examined his claims and eventually rejected them as unfounded.
The applicant disagreed and maintained his complaints. In addition, he argued that the proceedings had been generally unfair, that the domestic courts had been biased and that they had failed properly to assess the evidence in the case.
In so far as the applicant was dissatisfied with the lack of access to court, the Court notes that the applicant had that access as his claims were examined by the domestic courts at two instances and eventually rejected as unfounded. The Court further notes that, in principle, it is not called upon to examine the alleged errors of law and fact committed by the domestic judicial authorities, in so far as no unfairness of the proceedings can be detected (see, inter alia, Daktaras v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 42095/98, 11 January 2000). The Court observes that in the present case the domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction carefully examined the materials in their possession and reached reasoned conclusions as to the merits of the applicant’s claims. It has not been alleged that throughout the proceedings the applicant was not fully able to state his case and contest the evidence that he considered false. The applicant has therefore not substantiated his complaint of unfairness.
It follows that this application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention;
Declares the application inadmissible.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy