Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.01.2009 «Дело Кондрашов и другие (Kondrashov and others) против России» [англ.]

that it found violations of Article 6 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in a case involving very similar facts (see Kozeyev v. Russia, No. 934/03, 31 July 2007) and does not see any reason to reach a different conclusion in the present cases.
22. The Court notes that the applicants' claims were upheld by the judgments of 11 December 2001 of the Ryazan Garnison Military Court which became binding and enforceable on 24 December 2001 without any appeal being brought against them by the defendant military unit. More than ten months later, these judgments were quashed by the Presidium of the Moscow Circuit Military Court upon application of its President. The Government did not demonstrate to the Court that this unexpected intervention of a higher court in the applicants' case was made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see paragraph 20 above). That the Presidium of the Moscow Circuit Military Court disagreed with the application by the first-instance court of domestic material law is not in itself an exceptional circumstance justifying departure from the principle of legal certainty (see Kot v. Russia, No. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007). Nor can this departure be justified by the position of other Russian military courts which according to the Government dismissed similar claims in numerous similar cases at the material time.
23. The above elements are sufficient to conclude that the quashing of the judgments of 11 December 2001 in supervisory-review proceedings initiated by the President of the Moscow Circuit Military Court violated the applicants' right to a court protected by Article 6 of the Convention.
24. The Court further reiterates that the binding and enforceable judgments created an established right to payment in the applicants' favour, which is considered as "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Vasilopoulou v. Greece, No. 47541/99, § 22, 21 March 2002). The quashing of these judgments in breach of the principle of legal certainty frustrated the applicants' reliance on the binding judicial decisions and deprived them of an opportunity to receive the judicial awards they had legitimately expected to receive (see Dovguchits, cited above, § 35). There has accordingly been also a violation of that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

III. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention on
account of unfairness of the supervisory-review proceedings

25. The applicants also complained of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of unfairness of the supervisory-review proceedings. However, in their later observations they did not appear to maintain this complaint. Given the Court's finding that the applicants' right to a court was violated by the quashing of the judgments in their favour in the supervisory-review proceedings (see paragraph 23), the Court does not find it necessary to examine separately this issue.

IV. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the
non-enforcement of the judgments

26. The applicants also complained of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of non-enforcement of the judgments of 11 December 2001 delivered by the Ryazan Garnison Military Court. Invoking the same provisions the applicant S. Panchenko also complained of delayed enforcement of the two other judgments delivered by the same court on 13 and 20 December 2001 and of insufficient compensation subsequently awarded by the same court on account of this delayed enforcement. The relevant parts of the Convention's provisions are cited above.
27. The Court reiterates that the principles insisting that a final judicial decision must not be called into question and should be enforced

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... 7 8