{"id":1248,"date":"2010-07-01T07:57:15","date_gmt":"2010-07-01T06:57:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rcstaging.co.uk\/ehrac\/?post_type=case-studies&p=1248"},"modified":"2023-10-31T20:50:51","modified_gmt":"2023-10-31T20:50:51","slug":"korolev-v-russia","status":"publish","type":"case-studies","link":"http:\/\/ehrac.org.uk\/en_gb\/key-ehrac-cases\/korolev-v-russia\/","title":{"rendered":"Korolev v Russia"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>
\n\t
\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div>\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\r\n
\r\n\t
\r\n\t\t
\n
\n
\n
\n

Case No. 25551\/05<\/strong><\/p>\n

Judgment date: 01\/07\/10<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

In July 2002, the applicant was awarded 22.50 RUB for court costs against the Head of the Passport and Visa Department. In December 2003, the applicant issued proceedings against the inactivity of the bailiff to fulfil a writ of execution to recoup the costs. On appeal, the Sverdlovskiy Regional District Court upheld the decision that the applicant had not met the procedural requirements to pursue his claim. The applicant complained that the authorities\u2019 failure to pay, and the domestic courts\u2019 dismissal of his claim, violated his rights under Art. 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial) and his right to property under Art. 1 of Protocol 1.<\/p>\n

To read the full case summary, please follow the links below.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Links<\/h3>\n