Communicated on 24 May 2019
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 35686/16
Styliani PETROUDI
against Cyprus
lodged on 14 June 2016
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s right of access to court in the context of family proceedings in which she was found guilty of disobeying a court order regarding the communication rights between her former husband and their child and the penalty imposed therefor (four days’ imprisonment and a fine of 500 euros).
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 that the Supreme Court, in dismissing her appeal (no. 21/2013) for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that she had failed to refer to the Family Court of Second Instance on the title of her appeal, acted with excessive formalism in violation of her right of access to court. In this connection she pointed out that her appeal was registered by the Registry of the Supreme Court (which is also the Registry of Family Court of Second Instance), procedural steps were taken and written addresses, were filed in the case following directions by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only drew the omission to the applicant’s attention on the hearing date. Her subsequent applications for an extension of the time-limit to file her appeal were dismissed by both the Nicosia Family Court and the Supreme Court.
The applicant also complains under Article 13 of a lack of an effective remedy for her above complaint.
Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 7 that the Nicosia Family Court (application no. 236⁄06) imposed a heavier penalty than the one provided by the applicable domestic law; this provided for the imprisonment or the imposition of a fine of any person who did not comply with a court order and not both penalties combined.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Was Article 6 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings in the present case under its civil or criminal head?
3. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Supreme Court’s dismissal of her appeal? In particular, given the applicant’s complaint set out above, was the Supreme Court’s approach arbitrary or excessively formalistic?
4. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective remedy for her complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
5. Was Article 7 of the Convention applicable to the impugned proceedings in the present case? If so, was a heavier penalty imposed on the applicant by the Nicosia Family Court than the one which was provided for by the applicable domestic law, contrary to Article 7 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy