>
I. Joinder of the applications
9. Given that these four applications concern similar facts and complaints and raise almost identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to consider 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
10. 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
11. The Court notes 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
12. All applicants argued in substance that the quashing of the binding and enforceable judgments in their favour by way of supervisory review had violated the principle of legal certainty and therefore their right to a court under Article 6.
13. 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 regional courts quashed lower courts' unlawful judgments, thus correcting flagrant injustice and erasing dangerous precedents. In respect of the case of Spivak the Government also noted that it was the applicant who initiated supervisory review of the final judgment of 30 October 2003.
14. 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 compelling character, such as correction of fundamental defects or miscarriage of justice (see {Brumarescu} v. Romania [GC], No. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-VII; Ryabykh v. Russia, No. 52854/99, §§ 51 - 52, ECHR 2003-IX).
15. The Court further recalls that it has already found numerous violations of the Convention on account of the quashing of binding and enforceable judgments by way of supervisory review under the Code of Civil Procedure as in force at the material time (for supervisory review before 2003, see Ryabykh, cited above, §§ 52 - 58; for this procedure after 2003 - see Kot, cited above, § 29). Some of these violations were found in similar and, on certain occasions, virtually identical circumstances concerning benefits to the former participants in the cleaning-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site (see, amongst many other authorities, Androsov v. Russia, No. 63973/00, 6 October 2005; Kot, cited above; Finkov v. Russia, No. 27440/03, 8 October 2009). In those cases the Court found that the quashing of final judgments i
> 1 2 3 4 ... 5 6
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
