Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 04.03.2010 «Дело Толстобров (Tolstobrov) против России» [англ.]

12. 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 Kot v. Russia (No. 20887/03, § 17, 18 January 2007).
13. Under Article 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2002, in force at the material time, parties to the proceedings are to be summoned to a hearing by a letter sent by registered mail with an acknowledgment of receipt, by court summons with an acknowledgment of receipt, by telegram, by phone or fax or by any other means which can guarantee a record of the fact that the summons was sent and was received by the party.

THE LAW

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

14. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the final judgment of 16 March 2004, as upheld on 13 July 2004, had been quashed by way of supervisory review on 29 September 2004. In so far as relevant, these Articles read 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 deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. [...]"
15. The Government contested that argument. They argued, inter alia, that the supervisory review had been compatible with the Convention as it was aimed to correct a judicial error, namely the failure of the appeal court to notify the defendant company about the appeal hearings.

A. Admissibility

16. The Court notes that the 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 any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

1. Article 6

17. The Court reiterates that for the sake of legal certainty implicitly required by Article 6, the mere possibility of there being two views on the subject is not a ground for re-examination of final judgments and they should generally be left intact. They may be disturbed only to correct fundamental errors (see Ryabykh v. Russia, No. 52854/99, §§ 51 - 52, ECHR 2003-IX). The Court will hence have to determine if the grounds for the quashing of the applicant's judgment fell within this exception (see Protsenko v. Russia, No. 13151/04, § 29, 31 July 2008).
18. In the present case the final judgment was quashed for the district court's failure to duly inform the defendant company about the appeal hearing of 13 July 2004.
19. The Court considers that the circumstances referred to were in their nature and significance such as to justify the quashing of the final judgment and that this was not inconsistent with the principle of legal certainty (see Protsenko, cited above, §§ 33, 34). Indeed, by hearing the case unbeknownst to the defendant company the District Court deprived the trial of its requisite adversarial character (see Tishkevich v. Russia, No. 2202/05, § 25, 4 December 2008).
20. The Court finds, therefore, that in the circumstances of this particular case the quashing of the final judgment via supervisory review did not deprive the applicant of the "right to a court" under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. There has been accordingly no violation of that Article.

2. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

21. The Court observes that as a result of the supervisory review the applicant w

> 1 2 3