Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 21.10.2010 «Дело Ленченков и другие (Lenchenkov and others) против России» [англ.]

sider them in a single judgment (see Kazakevich and 9 other "Army Pensioners" cases v. Russia, Nos. 14290/03 et seq., § 15, 14 January 2010).

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

14. All applicants complained of violations of Article 6 on account of the quashing of the binding and enforceable judgments in their favour by way of supervisory review. They also complained of violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in relation to the same facts. The Court will consider all the cases in the light of both provisions, which insofar as relevant, read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time 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..."

A. Admissibility

15. In the case of Mr Bobarykin the Government asserted that the applicant has lost his victim status as he had been allocated a land plot for a new garage and paid compensation for the old one which had been demolished.
16. In the application No. 25182/07 the Government asserted that only one of the applicants, Yevgeniy Zaytsev, was a party to the domestic proceedings. Therefore if these proceedings did not concern the other applicants' rights, the complaints in their respect were incompatible ratione personae. If they did, these complaints failed for non-exhaustion, as the other applicants had not raised the relevant issues before the domestic courts.
17. As to the case of Mr Bobarykin, the Court reiterates that a decision favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, and afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, amongst many other authorities, Dalban v. Romania [GC], No. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI). In the present case, however, there is nothing to suggest that the authorities acknowledged that the applicant's rights had been violated by the quashing of the judgment of 21 October 2005 on 6 April 2006. Therefore the applicant has retained his victim status.
18. As to application No. 25182/07, the Court finds the Government's arguments are well-founded and concludes that the complaints lodged by Ms Irina Zaytseva and Mr Yaroslav Zaytsev are to be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4.
19. As to the rest of the cases, the Court observes that the applicants' complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It also notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

20. The Government argued that the supervisory review proceedings resulting in the quashing of the judgments at issue were lawful: they were initiated by the defendant authorities within the time-limits provided for by domestic law. The supervisory-review instance corrected a fundamental error by reinterpreting the relevant domestic law provisions or by reassessing the evidence. The applicants maintained their claims.
21. The Court reiterates that legal certainty, which is one of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law, presupposes respect for the principle of res judicata, which is the principle of the finality of judgments. A departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compe



> 1 2 3 4 ... 5 6

	Поделиться:	Tweet