Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.09.2010 «Дело Антюшина (Antyushina) против России» [англ.]

rcumstances.
13. On 26 February 1998 the applicant filed such a request with the District Court, at the same time claiming invalidation of two exchange transactions, involving her husband and third parties M. and Kh.
14. On 12 January 1999 the District Court decided to quash the judgment of 26 December 1994 on account of newly discovered circumstances.
15. Between 23 October 1998 and 27 September 1999 the District Court scheduled eleven hearings. Five of them did not take place due to the parties' failure to appear. According to the Government, on 27 September 1999 the District Court "made certain arrangements to ensure the parties' appearance for the next hearing".
16. On 5 October 1999 the District Court annulled all the real estate exchange transactions between the parties to the dispute. The court found it lawful to examine the case and adopt the judgment in absence of one of the respondents Kh. who had been notified of court hearings on multiple occasions.
17. On 22 December 1999 the Stavropol Regional Court ("the Regional Court") set aside the above judgment on appeal for errors in application of the procedural law, including insufficient measures to ensure Kh.'s appearance in court, and ordered a new hearing.
18. On 31 January 2000 the District Court stayed the proceedings until the end of a counter-terrorist operation in Grozniy of the Chechnya Republic, where one of the disputed flats was located. The proceedings were resumed on 19 May 2000.
19. On 26 June 2000 the court postponed the hearing due to some of the parties' failure to appear, having again "made certain arrangements to ensure their appearance for the next hearing".
20. On 6 October 2000 the hearing was adjourned due to the failure to appear of one of the parties' legal counsel.
21. After a hearing on 13 November 2000, the court decided to send a rogatory letter to the Nevinnomyssk Town Court ("the Town Court") for questioning of one of the parties. The proceedings were stayed until its execution.
22. On 13 March 2001 the proceedings were resumed. The court scheduled the next hearing for 14 August 2001 due to examination of one of the parties' appeal of an injunction order.
23. On 14 August 2001 the hearing did not take place due to some of the parties' failure to appear.
24. On 12 September 2001 the District Court accepted some of the parties' renunciation of their claims, transferred the rest of the claims for consideration to the Town Court and discontinued the proceedings.
25. After two hearings, on 25 December 2001 the Town Court discontinued the proceedings, including the part concerning the applicant's flat.
26. On 8 February 2002 the Regional Court overturned the above decision of on appeal and ordered a new examination.
27. On 5 April 2002 president of the Regional Court brought an extraordinary appeal (протест в порядке надзора) against the District Court's decisions of 12 January 1999 and 12 September 2001. It is not clear from the parties' submissions when the higher court called up the case for examination of the extraordinary appeal.
28. On 22 April 2002 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the impugned decisions by way of supervisory review for errors in application of the procedural law and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
29. On 28 May 2002 the District Court admitted the claims for new consideration and scheduled preparatory meetings with the parties.
30. On 23 October 2002 following one of the parties' protest against examination of the case in absence of the respondent Kh., the District Court stayed the proceedings until Kh.'s whereabouts could be established. In particular, the court noted that it had procured information from the post office, town administration and address bu



> 1 2 3 4 ... 5 6

	Поделиться:	Tweet