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

lling character, such as correction of fundamental defects or miscarriage of justice (see {Brumarescu} v. Romania [GC], No. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-VII; Ryabykh v. Russia, No. 52854/99, §§ 51 - 52, ECHR 2003-IX).
22. The Court further recalls that it has already found numerous violations of the Convention on account of the quashing of binding and enforceable judgments by way of supervisory review under the Code of Civil Procedure as in force at the material time. The Court finds no reason to come to a different conclusion in the present cases. The arguments submitted by the Government in the present cases were addressed in detail and dismissed in previous similar cases. The fact that the Presidia disagreed with the assessment made by the first-instance and appeal courts is not, in itself, an exceptional circumstance warranting the quashing of a binding and enforceable judgment (Kot, cited above, § 29).
23. The Court accordingly concludes that the quashing of the binding and enforceable judgments in the applicants' favour amounts to a breach of the principle of legal certainty in violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
24. The Court further reiterates that the binding and enforceable judgments created an established right to payment in the applicants' favour, which is considered as an asset within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Vasilopoulou v. Greece, No. 47541/99, § 22, 21 March 2002). The quashing of these judgments in breach of the principle of legal certainty frustrated the applicants' reliance on the binding judicial decisions and deprived them of an opportunity to receive the judicial awards they had legitimately expected to receive (see Dovguchits v. Russia, No. 2999/03, § 35, 7 June 2007). There has accordingly been also a violation of that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

III. Other alleged violations of the Convention

25. The applicants also lodged several other complaints concerning the above proceedings, referring to Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.
26. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.

IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

27. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

A. Damage

28. Mr Lenchenkov claimed the sums awarded by the quashed judgment, which was 110,532.45 Russian roubles (RUB), adjusted to an index rate in accordance with the Court's case-law, in respect of pecuniary damage. He submitted no calculation explaining that claimed adjustment. He also claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
29. Mr Bobarykin claimed EUR 10,000 in respect of pecuniary and EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
30. Ms Kolesnikova claimed RUB 475,074.86 in respect of pecuniary damage. She also asked for the monthly payments to be restored. She finally claimed EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
31. Mr Zaytsev claimed RUB 507,946,347 in respect of pecuniary damage, which he allegedly would have received from the respondent bank had the final judgment in his favour not been quashed. He also claimed EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
32. The Government consi

> 1 2 3 4 5 ... 6