Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.04.2010 «Дело Царева (Tsareva) против России» [англ.]

t the Magadan Town Children Hospital and reopened the case.
11. On the same date the Town Court partially granted the applicant's claims against both defendants and awarded her RUB 80,000 to be paid by the Magadan Regional Hospital and RUB 80,000 to be paid by the Magadan Town Children Hospital in non-pecuniary damages.
12. On 3 February 2004 the Magadan Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal and it acquired legal force.
13. On 24 May 2004 the Magadan Regional Hospital and on 26 October and 2 November 2004 December 2004 the Magadan Town Children Hospital each paid the non-pecuniary damages to the applicant in the amounts specified by the domestic court.
14. The judgment debt in the amount of RUB 8 awarded for the court fee on 28 November 2001, has not been enforced. According to the Government, since 2006 the authorities have made numerous attempts to contact the applicant and pay the awarded sum, but the applicant has not provided her banking details.

THE LAW

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

15. The Government submitted that the applicant had not informed the Court of the execution of the judgment in December 2004. 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). The Court further reiterates that applicants should keep it informed of all circumstances relevant to the application.
17. The Court notes that the applicant has indeed failed to inform it without undue delay of developments in her case. However, in the circumstances of the present case, it does not consider this failure, although regrettable, to amount to an abuse of the right of petition (see Plekhova v. Russia, No. 42752/04, § 19, 31 January 2008). The Court therefore rejects the Government's objection.

II. Alleged violation of Article 6
of the Convention on account of the quashing of the judgment
of 28 November 2001

18. The applicant complained that the quashing of the final judgment in her favour violated her right to a court as provided in Article 6 of the Convention. Article 6 in its relevant part reads as follows:
Article 6
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations... everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."
19. The Government argued that the supervisory review had been justified because the lower courts incorrectly assessed the evidence before them. Annulment of the binding judgment had been legitimate in a democratic society and had been exercised so as to strike a fair balance between the interests of the applicant and the need to ensure the effectiveness of the system of justice. In any event, the applicant's claims had been granted in the subsequent proceedings and she had received a bigger sum than awarded by the judgment of 28 November 2001.
20. The applicant maintained her claims.

A. Admissibility

21. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on

> 1 2 3 4 ... 5