Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 25.02.2010 «Дело Мордачев (Mordachev) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF MORDACHEV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 7944/05)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 25.II.2010)

--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Mordachev v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Nina {Vajic} <*>, President,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 February 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 7944/05) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Mr Vladimir Vladimirovich Mordachev ("the applicant"), on 4 February 2005.
2. The applicant was represented by Ms N. Mukhlayeva, a lawyer practising in Astrakhan. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 10 September 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

4. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the village of Tri Protoka in the Astrakhan Region.
5. On 6 December 2003 the applicant was dismissed from his position in a private company. He sued his former employer claiming reinstatement in the position and damages.
6. On 11 March 2004 the Krasnoyarskiy District Court of Astrakhan rejected his claims.
7. On 8 June 2004 the Astrakhan Regional Court set it aside on appeal, reinstated the applicant in his position and awarded him 157,427.98 Russian roubles (RUB) of outstanding salary, RUB 5,000 of non-pecuniary damages and RUB 4,000 of legal fees. The appeal judgment became final and enforceable on the same date.
8. On 28 June 2004 the defendant company lodged an application for supervisory review of the appeal judgment of 8 June 2004. On 12 July 2004 the local public prosecutor, who had earlier participated in the proceedings, lodged a similar application.
9. On 3 August 2004 a judge of the Astrakhan Regional Court referred the case to its Presidium.
10. On 18 August 2004 the Presidium of the Astrakhan Regional Court, having heard the parties and the prosecutor, quashed the appeal judgment of 8 June 2004 and reinstated the judgment of 11 March 2004, on the grounds that the appeal court had made wrong findings of fact.

II. Relevant domestic law

11. 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 (see Sobelin and Others v. Russia, Nos. 30672/03, et seq., §§ 33 - 42, 3 May 2007).

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

12. The applicant compl

> 1 2 3