n the applicants' favour was not justified by circumstances of compelling and exceptional character. The Court finds no reason to come to a different conclusion in the present cases.
16. The arguments submitted by the Government in the present cases were addressed in detail and dismissed in previous similar cases. Misapplication of material law by the first instance courts does not in itself justify the quashing of binding and enforceable judgments on supervisory review (Kot, cited above, § 29).
17. As to the fact that in the case of Spivak it was the applicant who asked for supervisory review of the judgment of 30 October 2003, the Court observes that the applicant asked to set aside only the part of the judgment unfavourable to him. However, the supervisory-review instance quashed the judgment in its entirety, thereby also destroying the part favourable to the applicant (see, by contrast, Fadin v. Russia, No. 58079/00, § 34, 27 July 2006).
18. The Court accordingly concludes that the quashing of the binding and enforceable judgments in the applicants' favour amounts to a breach of the principle of legal certainty in violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
19. The Court further reiterates that the binding and enforceable judgments created an established right to payment in the applicants' favour, which is considered as an asset 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 v. Russia, No. 2999/03, § 35, 7 June 2007). There has accordingly been also a violation of that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
III. Other alleged violations of the Convention
20. In the case of Davletkhanov the applicant complains under Article 6 about the length of the proceedings. In the case of Kutsevalov the applicant complains under the same Article about non-execution of the judgment of 2 February 2004; he also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the allegedly insufficient amount of social benefits; he also invokes Article 14 of the Convention. In the case of Spivak the applicant complains under Article 6 about conflicting rulings of the Constitutional Court and their non-enforcement.
21. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that they are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
22. 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."
A. Damage
1. The parties' submissions
23. The details of the applicants' claims appear in the table below.
24. The Government disagreed and asked the Court to reject the applicants' claims. As to pecuniary damage, the Government noted that the applicant failed to substantiate the claim for pecuniary damage or made wrong calculations. As to non-pecuniary damage, the Government considered the applicants' claims to be excessive and unreasonable.
2. The Court's assessm
> 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
