Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 21.10.2010 «Дело Ленченков и другие (Lenchenkov and others) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF LENCHENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications Nos. 16076/06, 42096/06, 44466/06
and 25182/07)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 21.X.2010)

--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Lenchenkov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina {Vajic} <*>,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Andre} Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 September 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in four applications (Nos. 16076/06, 42096/06, 44466/06 and 25182/07) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by four Russian nationals ("the applicants"). The applicants' names, their years of birth and the dates of their applications to the Court appear in the table below.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by their Agent, Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicants complained inter alia of the quashing of binding and enforceable judgments by way of supervisory-review in 2006 - 2007.
4. On 17 October 2009 the President of the First Section decided to communicate these complaints to the respondent Government. It was also decided in all cases to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility (Article 29 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

5. The applicants are Russian citizens whose names and years of birth are tabulated below.
6. The fact of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarized as follows.
7. The applicants were claimants in civil proceedings concluded by judgments in their favour.
8. Subsequently, on the defendants' initiatives, Presidia of regional courts concerned quashed these final judgments by way of supervisory review on the grounds that the inferior courts had incorrectly applied the domestic law or wrongly assessed the evidence.
9. The judgments' particulars are tabulated below.
10. In the case of Mr Bobarykin subsequently, on 16 March 2007, the applicant signed an agreement under which the local authorities allocated him a place for a new garage and paid a compensation for demolition of the old one.
11. In the case of Ms Kolesnikova the regular payments were made under the final judgment up until it was quashed via supervisory review.

II. Relevant domestic law

12. The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure in 2003 - 2007 is summed up in the Court's judgment in the case of Kot v. Russia (No. 20887/03, § 17, 18 January 2007).

THE LAW

I. Joinder of the applications

13. Given that these four applications concern similar facts and complaints and raise almost identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to con

> 1 2 3 ... 4 5 6