Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.10.2009 «Дело Финков (Finkov) против России» [англ.]

examination for 30 November 2004. On that date the applicant asked the court to request some documents from the defendant. The hearing was adjourned to 21 December 2004.
28. Upon the applicant's requests the subsequent hearings were adjourned until 16 February 2005.
29. On 16 February 2005 the case was adjourned due to the absence of a prosecutor.
30. On 2 March 2005 the case was not tried again due to the applicant's failure to appear.
31. On 24 March 2005 the District Court partly upheld the applicant's action and awarded him a lump sum of RUB 45,919.02 in outstanding compensation for health damage, monthly payments of RUB 3,857.94 in compensation for health damage and RUB 6,000 in compensation for damage caused by a delay in payment of monthly sums. Thus, as compared with the quashed final judgment of 18 November 1997, the court awarded a lesser lump sum but higher monthly payments.
32. On 7 July 2005 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
33. As to the enforcement of the judgment, the monthly payments were made regularly and the lump sum was transferred to the applicant's account by 30 November 2005.

4. Quashing of the judgment of 24 March 2005, as upheld
on 7 July 2005, and ensuing proceedings

34. On 15 February 2006 the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don granted the applicant's request and quashed the judgment of 24 March 2005 as upheld on 7 July 2005 due to newly-discovered circumstances.
35. On 28 February 2006 and on 28 March 2006 the applicant unsuccessfully requested suspension of the proceedings as the same claims were considered by another court (see para. 46 below).
36. On 17 April 2006 the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don discontinued the proceedings as the applicant failed to appear before the court and did not request the case to be tried in his absence.

C. Proceedings concerning a delay in enforcement
of the judgment of 18 November 1997

37. In August 2000 the applicant lodged an action against the Federal Treasury complaining that the lump sum awarded under the judgment of 18 November 1997 had never been paid to him. He sought compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
38. On 14 December 2000 the Leninskiy District Court stayed the proceedings because the President of the Rostov Regional Court had lodged an application for a supervisory review of the judgment of 18 November 1997.
39. The decision of 14 December 2000 was quashed on appeal on 6 March 2001 and the proceedings were resumed.
40. On 4 June 2003 the Leninskiy District Court disallowed the applicant's action against the Treasury. That decision was quashed on 9 July 2003 and the action was sent to the District Court for an examination on its merits.
41. On 6 October 2003 the Leninskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's action on the ground that the judgment of 18 November 1997 had been quashed by way of supervisory review on 15 March 2001 and that on 10 December 2002 the applicant had obtained another judgment in his favour. On 12 November 2003 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment of 6 October 2003.

D. First set of proceedings concerning indexation
of monthly payments

42. In September 1999 the applicant brought proceedings against authorities demanding adjustment of his monthly payments.
43. On 22 May 2000 the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don dismissed the applicant's action. The judgment was upheld on appeal and became final on 11 October 2000.
44. On 13 February 2006 the applicant requested the case to be reopened due to newly discovered circumstances.
45. On 30 March 2006 the Leninskiy District Court granted the claim and quashed the ju

> 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 11