Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 12.05.2010 «Дело Гуляев (Gulyayev) против России» [англ.]

20 April 2006.
12. On 15 November 2006 the Presidium of the Kursk Regional Court granted the application, quashed the contested judgment and remitted the matter for a new examination by the District Court. In so doing, it held that the District Court had gone beyond the scope of the claims since it had found that the veteran certificate had been lawfully issued to the applicant, whereas the Social Security Office had not raised that issue. It also found that the District Court had not examined the administrative decision to suspend the monthly payments to the applicant and had not indicated the statute regulating seizure of certificates in court proceedings.
13. On 29 December 2006 the Leninskiy District Court issued a new judgment. On the applicant's claim, it held that the discontinuation of payments had been lawful, but awarded the applicant the amount outstanding and interest on it. The District Court also granted the Social Security Office's counterclaim and annulled the veteran certificate on the ground that he had failed to produce any documents showing that he had taken part in mine cleaning prior to 9 May 1945 (the official date of the end of the war).

II. Relevant domestic law

14. The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure at the material time is summed up in the Court's judgment in the case of Sobelin and Others v. Russia (Nos. 30672/03, et seq., §§ 33 - 42, 3 May 2007).

THE LAW

I. The Government's objection as to abuse of petition

15. The Government submitted that the applicant had provided the Court with false information as to the lawfulness and good faith of the manner in which he had obtained the certificate of a war veteran. Such failure amounted to an abuse of the right of application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention which, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:
"The Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Article 34 which it considers incompatible with the provisions of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, manifestly ill-founded, or an abuse of the right of application."
16. The Court reiterates that, except in extraordinary cases, an application may only be rejected as abusive if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, §§ 53 - 54; I.S. v. Bulgaria (dec.), No. 32438/96, 6 April 2000; Varbanov v. Bulgaria, No. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X).
17. In the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that the manner in which the applicant obtained the document does not have any bearing on the issue being examined. The Court therefore rejects the Government's objection.

II. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
on account of supervisory review

18. The applicant complained that the quashing of the judgment of 20 April 2006 by way of supervisory review had impaired the requirement of legal certainty as provided in Article 6 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations... everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."

A. Admissibility

19. The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

20. The Government argued that the supervisory review had been justified as it had intended to correct a "fundamental defect" in the judgment of the lower court. It further maintained that the Military Commission had failed to lodge an ordinary

> 1 2 3 4