EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION / Alla Tymofeyeva (ed.)

to Articles 71 and 80 of the Civil Code that envisaged a three-year limitation period for lodging claims for damages. The applicant appealed in cassation directly to the Higher Commercial Court. On 21 January 2004 the Higher Commercial Court rejected the cassation appeal as it should have been lodged through the first instance or appeal court which had considered the case and where the case file was. The court referred to Article 109 of the Code of Commercial Procedure. On 4 February 2004 the applicant re-lodged its appeal in cassation. On 10 March 2004 the Higher Commercial Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal as it was lodged outside the one-month time-limit allowed for the introduction of such appeals (Article 110 of the Code of Commercial Procedure). It also held that the incorrect introduction of the cassation appeal by the applicant does not suspend the one-month time-limit envisaged by Article 110 of the Code of Commercial Procedure. As a result, the cassation appeal was returned to the applicant. On 5 April 2004 the applicant re-lodged its appeal in cassation for the third time. It also requested renewal of the time-limit for the introduction of the cassation appeal. On 6 May 2004 the Higher Commercial Court rejected the applicant’s request to extend the time-limit as unsubstantiated. It also stated, inter alia , that the time-limit for lodging an appeal in cassation was 12 January 2004, but the applicant had lodged its appeal on 5 April 2004, i.e. out of time. Furthermore, the Higher Commercial Court reiterated that, under Article 110 of the Code of Commercial Procedure, the refusals of 21 January and 10 March 2004 to allow the applicant’s cassation appeal had no influence on the one-month time-limit for the introduction of an appeal with the Higher Commercial Court. Moreover, Article 109 of the Code of Commercial Procedure clearly states that cassation appeals with the Higher Commercial Court had to be addressed to it through the court of first instance or the court of appeal. As a result, the cassation appeal and the court fees were returned to the applicant. On 2 June and 20 July 2004 the Higher Commercial Court informed the applicant, by letters, that its complaints about the partiality and lack of independence of the judges who rejected the applicant’s cassation appeals were unsubstantiated. They also informed the applicant that it could appeal in cassation against the rulings of the Higher Commercial Court to the Supreme Court. On 31 May 2004 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the ruling of 6 May 2004 of the Higher Commercial Court with the Supreme Court. On 16 September 2004 the Supreme Court refused to initiate cassation proceedings.

Questions: 1. Is the application admissible? 2. If not, on which grounds? 3. If you were a judge of the Court how would you rule on the case?

40

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION