| Title of Document: |
Application concerning a claim for less than 1 euro inadmissible |
| Keywords: |
right to a fair trial, right to the protection of property |
| Author: |
cmiskp.echr.coe |
|
|
| Codex-online publication date: 07/28/2010 06:55:56 PM |
| Date of Original Publication: 07/27/2010 |
| Country: Russia |
Summary: In his admissibility decision Korolev (II) v. Russia the European Court of Human Rights considers that the a violation of a right, however real from a purely legal point of view, had to attain a minimum level of severity to warrant consideration by an international court. The assessment of that minimum level was relative and depended on all the circumstances of the case. The Court was struck by the fact that Mr Korolev’s grievances had been explicitly limited to the failure to pay him a sum equivalent to less than a euro. The Court accepted that even a modest financial award might be significant for some people because of their personal circumstances or the economic situation of the country or region in which they lived. However, less than one euro was clearly of negligible value and of minimal significance for Mr Korolev. The Court declare ,unanimously, the application inadmissible.
|
|
Principal facts
The applicant, Vladimir Korolev is a Russian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Orenburg, Russia. He sued the Head of the Passport and Visa Department at the Regional Directorate of the Interior for preventing him from having access to documents related to a delay in issuing his new foreign passport. The courts found in Mr Korolev’s favour and ordered that access be given to him to all documents and materials related to the issuing of his passport and that he be paid 22.50 Russian Roubles (equivalent to less than one euro) in compensation for court fees.
While it is not clear from the file when and whether access was given to Mr Korolev to the documents in question, all his subsequent actions were solely aimed at recovering the 22.50 Roubles. In July 2002, a writ of execution was issued to him and in April 2003 the bailiffs started the enforcement proceedings in order to have the amount due paid to him. When a few months later Mr Korolev challenged in court the bailiffs’ inactivity, his complaint was dismissed as unsubstantiated.
Complaints
Mr Korolev complained about the failure of the Russian authorities to pay him the 22.50 Roubles awarded by the domestic courts. He relied on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and on Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (right to the protection of property).
|
|
| For the entire article, please see the attached file: |
|
|
|