Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.07.2009 «Дело Молодыка и другие (Molodyka and others) против России» [англ.]

on, the Court decides to consider them in a single judgment.

II. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of quashing
of the judgments in the applicants' favour

10. The applicants complained under Article 6 that the judgments in their favour had been quashed on supervisory review and that they had been deprived of their property as a result of the quashing. Some of them also refer to Article 1 of Protocol No.1 in respect of their complaint. These Articles, in their relevant parts, provide 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..."
11. The Government argued that the supervisory review of the judgments had not breached the Convention. In each case it had been initiated by a party to the proceedings within less than one year from the respective judgments' entry into force. The quashing had been justified because the judgments had been based on a misapplication of law and hence had contained a fundamental defect. Annulment of binding judgments had been legitimate in a democratic society and known to such countries as Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Besides, the Council of Europe had been satisfied with reforms of the supervisory-review procedure in Russia. Furthermore, in the cases at hand, the supervisory review had not breached Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, since the Presidium had found that the applicants' claims had been unfounded and therefore the applicants had not had a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Besides, the applicant in case No. 3447/05 in 2007 received compensation from the Ministry of Finance in the amount prescribed by the domestic law, while the applicants in cases Nos. 15560/05 and 21613/05 had failed to apply for redemption of the promissory notes.
12. The applicants maintained their complaints.

A. Admissibility

13. The Court notes that the applications are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

1. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

14. The Court reiterates that the quashing by way of supervisory review of a judicial decision which has become final and binding may render the litigant's right to a court illusory and infringe the principle of legal certainty (see, among many other authorities, {Brumarescu} v. Romania [GC], No. 28342/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-VII; Ryabykh v. Russia, No. 52854/99, §§ 56 - 58, 24 July 2003). Departures from that principle are justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see Protsenko v. Russia, No. 13151/04, §§ 25 - 34, 31 July 2008).
15. The Court observes that in the cases at hand the judgments were set aside by way of a supervisory review solely on the ground that the lower courts had incorrectly applied the substantive law. The Court reiterates its constant approach that in the absence of a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings a party's disagreement with the assessment made by the first-instance and appeal courts is not a circumstance of a substantial and compelling character warranting the quashing of a binding and enforceable judgment and re-opening of the proceedings on the applicant's claim (see Dovguchits v.

> 1 2 3 4