Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.04.2010 «Дело Сизинцева и другие (Sizintseva and others) против России» [англ.]

006 (see Appendix below), has not been paid to her to date.

II. Relevant domestic law and practice

A. The Constitution and the Civil Code
of the Russian Federation

16. According to Article 15 § 1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Constitution has the supreme juridical force, direct action and shall be used on the whole territory of the Russian Federation. Laws and other legal acts adopted in the Russian Federation shall not contradict the Constitution.
17. In accordance with Article 125 § 4 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation reviews constitutionality of the law applied or due to be applied in a specific case in accordance with procedures established by federal law, upon requests of the courts.
18. By the Ruling No. 19-П of 17 June 1998 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation held that it had exclusive competence to decide whether federal or regional laws violated the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Ordinary courts were not entitled to rule on the constitutionality of federal laws. In case of doubt as to whether a law complied with the Constitution, they should direct an inquiry to the Constitutional Court.

B. The State Commodity Bonds Act

19. On 2 June 2000, section 3 of the State Commodity Bonds Act (federal law No. 86-FZ of 1 June 1995) providing that the special-purpose settlement orders were to be recognised as the State internal debt was amended to read, in the relevant parts, as follows:
"To set, in the [State Programme for the redemption of the State internal debt of the Russian Federation], the following sequence and terms of redemption of State commodity bonds, depending on the type of the bond:
- [...] in respect of bearers of special-purpose settlement orders that gave the right to purchase passenger cars in 1991 and 1992 - payment of monetary compensation equal to the value of the car described in the order, as determined in co-ordination with car manufacturers at the moment of redemption. [...]
- in respect of bearers of special-purpose settlement orders that gave the right to purchase passenger cars in 1993 - 1995 - payment of monetary compensation equal to a part of the value of the car described in the order, as determined on account of the percentage of the part of the full value of car paid by the owner by 1 January 1992 (in accordance with the price scales in force until 1 January 1992), as well as the price of the cars determined in co-ordination with car manufacturers at the moment of redemption"
20. For the summary of the other relevant domestic law provisions see Grishchenko v. Russia, (dec.), No. 75907/01, 8 July 2004.

THE LAW

I. Joinder of the applications

21. Given that the five applications at hand concern similar facts and complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to consider them in a single judgment.

II. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account
of supervisory review

22. The applicants complained, notably, under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the supervisory review of the judgments. Mrs Gladkova complained under these provisions that she was not notified of the supervisory review hearing and could not be present at the examination of her case. These Articles, insofar as relevant, provide as follows:
Article 6 § 1
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be de

> 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 11