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

Russia, No. 2999/03, § 30, 7 June 2007; and Kot v. Russia, No. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007). The Government did not put forward any arguments which would enable the Court to reach a different conclusion in the present three cases. There has been, accordingly, a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

2. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

16. The Court reiterates that the existence of a debt confirmed by a binding and enforceable judgment constitutes the beneficiary's "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. (see, among other authorities, Androsov v. Russia, No. 63973/00, § 69, 6 October 2005).
17. The Court has found in many cases that the quashing of the enforceable judgments frustrated the applicants' reliance on the binding judicial decision and deprived them of an opportunity to receive the money they had legitimately expected to receive (see, among others, Ivanova v. Russia, No. 11697/05, § 23, 24 April 2008, Dmitriyeva v. Russia, No. 27101/04, § 32, 3 April 2008). In these circumstances, even assuming that the interference was lawful and pursued a legitimate aim, the Court considers that the quashing of the enforceable judgment in the applicants' favour by way of supervisory review placed an excessive burden on them and was incompatible with Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1. There has therefore been a violation of that Article in respect of the present three applications.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

18. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
19. The applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the time-limits established for this purpose. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sum on that account.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
4. Holds that no award should be made under Article 41 of the Convention.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 July 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Christos ROZAKIS
President

{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar

Appendix

-------------T------------------T-------------T-------------T-------------¬
¦Application ¦ Applicant's ¦ Judgment ¦ judgment ¦Quashing on ¦
¦ Number, ¦ name, ¦ in the ¦ upheld on ¦supervisory ¦
¦ date of ¦ year of ¦ applicant's ¦appeal (date)¦review (date)¦
¦ lodging ¦ birth ¦favour (date)¦ ¦ ¦
+------------+------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
¦3447/05 ¦Lyudmila ¦29 July 2003 ¦15 September ¦28 October ¦
¦(10/12/2004)¦Mikhaylovna ¦ ¦2003 ¦2004 ¦
¦ ¦Molodyka (1954) ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+------------+------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
¦15560/05 ¦Olga Nikolayevna ¦10 September ¦22 October ¦16 December ¦
¦(31/03/2005)¦Kuznyayeva (1956) ¦2003 ¦2003 ¦2004 ¦
+------------+------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
¦21613/05 ¦Laris

> 1 2 3 4