Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 20.05.2010 «Дело Гарагуля (Garagulya) против России» [англ.]

urt found that the quashing of final judgments in the applicants' favour was not justified by circumstances of compelling and exceptional character. The Court finds no reason to come to a different conclusion in the present case.
20. The arguments submitted by the Government in the present case were addressed in detail and dismissed in previous similar cases. Misapplication of material law by the lower courts does not in itself justify the quashing of binding and enforceable judgments on supervisory review, even if the latter was exercised within the one-year time-limit set in domestic law (Kot v. Russia, No. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007). Nor can the Court discern any fundamental defect in the present case arising from the specific grounds put forward by the Government. In the present case, like in all others, the supervisory review was prompted by higher courts' disagreement about the applicant's entitlement to social benefits, which was determined in fair adversarial proceedings at the fist-instance and further confirmed on appeal (compare Protsenko v. Russia, No. 13151/04, §§ 30 - 34, 31 July 2008, and Tishkevich v. Russia, No. 2202/05, §§ 25 - 26, 4 December 2008). Finally, while the aim of uniform application of domestic law may be achieved through various legislative and adjudicative means, it cannot justify disregard for the applicant's legitimate reliance on res judicata (see Kulkov and Others, cited above, § 27).
21. The Court accordingly concludes that the quashing of the binding and enforceable judgment in the applicant's favour amounts to a breach of the principle of legal certainty in violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
22. The Court further reiterates that the binding and enforceable judgments created an established right to payment in the applicant's favour, which is considered as "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Vasilopoulou v. Greece, No. 47541/99, § 22, 21 March 2002). The quashing of the judgments in breach of the principle of legal certainty frustrated the applicant's reliance on the binding judicial decisions and deprived him of an opportunity to receive the judicial awards he 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.

II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

23. 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

24. The applicant claimed 4,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He did not claim pecuniary damage.
25. The Government considered that the applicant's claim for non-pecuniary damage was unsubstantiated.
26. The Court finds that the applicant has suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of the violations found which cannot be compensated by the mere finding of a violation. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and making its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards to the applicant a sum of EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Costs and expenses

27. The applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, claimed EUR 2,000 for legal costs. He attached the lawyer's bill in support of his claim.
28. The Government considered the claims as unsubstantiated as the applicant provided no proof of payment.
29. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is enti

> 1 2 3 4