Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.12.2009 "Дело "Гудков (Gudkov) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

t in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Gudkov 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,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 December 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 13173/03) 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 Sergey Yevgenyevich Gudkov ("the applicant"), on 7 April 2003.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr V. Karashchuk, a lawyer practising in Rostov-on-Don. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by their Agent, Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the Court.
3. On 12 October 2006 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 1961 and lives in Rostov-on-Don.
5. On an unspecified date he sued his former wife for title to a half of the flat which they had allegedly purchased while they were married. The matter was repeatedly reviewed by courts at two levels of jurisdiction.
6. On 20 February 2001 the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don dismissed the applicant's claim.
7. On 11 May 2001 the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 20 February 2001 on appeal and remitted the matter for further consideration.
8. On 8 August 2001 the District Court granted the applicant's claim in full.
9. On 19 September 2001 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment of 8 August 2001 on appeal.
10. On 2 October 2002 the applicant's former wife asked the President of the Rostov Regional Court to lodge an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 8 August 2001 as upheld on 19 September 2001.
11. On 24 December 2002 the acting President of the Rostov Regional Court granted the request and sent the case to the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court for supervisory review.
12. On 26 December 2002 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court reassessed the evidence and quashed the judgments of 11 May, 8 August and 19 September 2001 by way of supervisory review and reinstated the judgment of 20 February 2001. It considered that the applicant had failed to provide enough evidence to substantiate his title to the disputed property.

II. Relevant domestic law

13. 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 Ryabykh v. Russia (No. 52854/99, §§ 31 - 42, ECHR 2003-X).

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 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment of 8 August 2001 as upheld on 19 September 2001 had been quashed

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6