Claiming less than 1 Euro before the ECHR

27 July 2010, Strasbourg (Ref: Applic. 2551/05). A court award of 22.50 Roubles was never honoured by the authorities, and Applicant's further domestic actions to recover the moneys were dismissed. This led to the present application before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Artice 1 of Protocol 1 (right to the protection of property). The Court concluded that the applicant had not suffered a 'significant disadvantage' in terms of the admissibility criterion introduced with the entry into force of Protocol No. 14 on 1 June 2010.

Protocol No. 14 requires that applications were inadmissible where 'the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage, unless respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits and provided that no case may be rejected on this ground which has not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal'.

The ECHR examined each of the elements in turn:

• Significant disadvantage

The Court examined firstly whether the Applicant had suffered any significant disadvantage. The Court noted that this could not be given an exhaustive definition, and it was up to the Court to establish objective criteria for the application of the new rule.

The Court then observed that 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 Applicant’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 the Applicant.

Conscious that a violation of the Convention might concern an important question of principle and thus cause a significant disadvantage without affecting pecuniary interest, the Court noted that Applicant had only complained of the failure to pay him less than a Euro in dues. He had not complained about the merits of the proceedings he instituted in his country (right of access to his file at the Passport and Visa Department), nor had he challenged the execution of the domestic court judgment as regards his access to that file.

The Court therefore concluded that Mr Korolev had not suffered a significant disadvantage.

• Respect for human rights

The Court found that respect for human rights did not require an examination of this application on the merits. The Court recalled that it had decided on many previous occasions claims concerning the non-execution of domestic judicial decisions in Russia and the need for adoption of general measures to prevent future violations stemming from non-execution. An examination on the merits of this particular claim would not add anything new, and was consequently not necessary.

• Consideration by a domestic tribunal

Lastly, the Court held that the purpose of its examination of whether this Applicant's had been duly considered by a domestic tribunal was part of its objective to ensure that every case was judicially appraised so as to avoid cases of denial of justice. It noted that the Applicant’s case had been considered at two levels of domestic jurisdiction and his claims had been granted; his subsequent complaints having been rejected for non-compliance with domestic procedural requirements. Consequently, there had been due judicial consideration of his case at national level.

The Court, after examining this application in the light of the three conditions established by the new admissibility criterion, declared it inadmissible.