. , .11, .1 . 620075



15 January 2004

Application no. 8269/02 


Dear Sir,

I write to inform you that following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the above application, the President of the Chamber to which the case has been allocated decided, on 8 January 2004, under Rule 54 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the application should be given to the Government of Russia and that the Government should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case by 7 April 2004.

The Government have been requested deal with the following question:

- was there a breach of the applicant association's right to a court under Article 6 1 of the Convention, as a result of the quashing of the judgment of 17 June 1999 by way of the supervisory review?

The Government's observations will be sent to you in order that you may submit written observations in reply on behalf of the applicant. Under Rule 34 4 (a) of the Rules of Court, the Government have been authorised to submit their observations within the above time-limit in Russian if they so prefer. In that event, the observations in one of the Court's official languages should reach the Court by 5 May 2004I should also inform you that at this stage of the proceedings free legal aid may be applied for under the Court's legal aid scheme by applicants who have insufficient means to pay for legal representation. I enclose a copy of the relevant chapter of the Rules of Court for your information. You should let me know as soon as possible whether an application for legal aid will be made in the present case. The necessary forms will then be sent to you.

I enclose for your information statements of facts prepared by the Registry.

Yours faithfully,

Application no. 8269/02




The applicant association, "Sutyazhnik", is a non-governmental organisation, created in 1994 in Sverdlovsk Region, Russia. It is represented before the Court by its president, S.I. Belyayev.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant association, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant association is a non-governmental organisation, which was registered in

1994 by the Sverdlovsk Regional Department of Justice. In 1995 a new law on nongovernmental organisations was adopted. The law required that allNGOs established before

1995 be re-registered before 1 July 1999. The applicant association applied twice for re-registration to the Regional Department of Justice ("the Department"). However, their applications were refused.

The applicant association brought an action against the Department seeking its re-registration. On 17 June 1999 the Commercial Court of the Sverdlovsk Region satisfied the applicant association's claim and ordered the Department to register the applicant association. This decision was upheld by the Federal Commercial Court of the Ural Circuit on 18 October 1999.

On an unspecified date the Vice-President of the Supreme Commercial Court brought an extraordinary appeal (nadsop) against the decisions of 17 June and 18 October 1999.

On 26 September 2000 the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation quashed the lower courts' decisions by way of supervisory review on the ground that the dispute at issue was outside the competence of the commercial courts. The proceedings were discontinued.

According to the applicant association, on several occasions it applied to the Commercial Court of the Sverdlovsk Region with a view to initiate enforcement proceedings against the Department, but to no avail. The applicant association submits that it was informed about the decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation of 26 September 2000 only in November 2001.

B. Relevant domestic law

For the relevant provisions see the Ryabykhv. Russiajudgment of 24 July 2003(no. 52854/99).


Under Article 6 1 of the Convention the applicant association complains that its right to a court was breached by the domestic courts as a result of the quashing of the final judgment of 17 June 1999.