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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy