Information Note on the Court\u2019s case-law 234
\nNovember 2019<\/p>\n
Pantsulai v. Russia (dec.)<\/strong> – 34275\/19<\/p>\n Decision 8.10.2019 [Section III]<\/p>\n Article 35<\/strong> Failure to make use of cassation appeal review by a person detained pending deportation: inadmissible<\/p>\n Facts \u2013 The applicant was placed in detention pending deportation under the judicial procedure prescribed by the Code of Administrative Procedure of 2015. The latest in a series of detention orders was issued by the town court and the applicant\u2019s appeal against it was dismissed by the regional court.<\/p>\n Law \u2013 Article 35 \u00a7 1: In Chigirinova v. Russia (dec.) (28448\/16, 13 December 2016, Information Note 203), the Court had concluded that in cases concerning disputes regarding public authorities, any person who intended to lodge an application in respect of a violation of the rights under the Convention had to \u2013 in addition to the ordinary appeal provided for by the Code of Administrative Procedure \u2013 use the remedies offered by the two-layer cassation procedure, since it constituted an effective remedy capable of providing redress in cases examined under the Code.<\/p>\n Nothing in the present case indicated that the applicant had lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment of the regional court, or intended to do so, or had in any way been prevented from lodging such an appeal.<\/p>\n Given that Chapter 28 of the Code did not provide any special rules or exceptions to the ordinary procedure of cassation appeal review for persons detained pending deportation or readmission, the applicant had not exhausted the effective domestic remedies available to him.<\/p>\n Conclusion: inadmissible (failure to exhaust domestic remedies).<\/p>\n
\nArticle 35-1<\/strong>
\nExhaustion of domestic remedies<\/strong><\/p>\n