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

appeal for lack of financial means needed to pay a court fee. It also held that in any event the applicant's rights had not been violated as the judgment of 20 April 2006 had been fully enforced prior to the quashing.
21. The applicant maintained his claims.
22. The Court reiterates that legal certainty, which is one of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law, presupposes respect for the principle of res judicata, the principle of the finality of judgments. A departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character, such as correction of fundamental defects or miscarriage of justice (see, among many other authorities, {Brumarescu} v. Romania [GC], No. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-VII; Ryabykh v. Russia, No. 52854/99, §§ 51 - 52, 24 July 2003).
23. The Court found on numerous occasions that the quashing of final and binding judgments by way of supervisory review under the Code of Civil Procedure as in force at the material time infringed the principle of legal certainty and was only justified in exceptional circumstances (see Protsenko v. Russia, No. 13151/04, §§ 29 - 34, 31 July 2008; Tishkevich v. Russia, No. 2202/05, §§ 24 - 27, 4 December 2008).
24. Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the judgment of 20 April 2006 was set aside by way of supervisory review on the ground that the lower court considered of its own motion the question of lawfulness of the applicant's veteran certificate (see paragraph 12 above). The arguments put forward by the authorities do not warrant the conclusion that this discloses a fundamental defect warranting the departure from the principle of legal certainty.
25. Furthermore, in the Russian legal system such defects could have been cured in the appeal proceedings. Thus, a situation where the final judgment in the applicant's favour was called into question could have been avoided, had the Military Commission lodged an ordinary appeal within the statutory ten-day time-limit (see Zvezdin v. Russia, No. 25448/06, § 30, 14 June 2007). The Government's argument concerning a lack of financial means necessary to lodge an appeal is unsupported by any evidence. The Court notes that even if this fact had proved true, the appellant was free to request a deferment or payment by instalments of the court fee, in accordance with Section 333.41 of the Tax Code of Russia of 5 August 2000.
26. As for the Government's contention that the judgment had been fully enforced prior to the quashing, the Court considers that this fact did not by itself efface the effects of legal uncertainty the applicant had to endure after the judgment of 20 April 2006 had been quashed. Nor did so the fact that the applicant's claim was granted as a result of the proceedings following the quashing (see Zasurtsev v. Russia, No. 67051/01, § 51, 27 April 2006).
27. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

28. 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

29. The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
30. The Government noted that the applicant had failed to substantiate his allegedly excessive and unreasonable claims.
31. The Court finds that the applicant has suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of the violation found which cannot be compensated by the mere finding of a violation. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and making its asse

> 1 2 3 4