Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 02.09.2010 <Дело Таянко (Tayanko) против России» [англ.]

flat with his family.

D. Proceedings for damages

29. On 12 July 2002 the applicant brought proceedings against the Ryazan Town Administration, the bailiff's service, the Prosecutor's Office and the Ministry of Finance claiming damages for the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour.
30. On 8 August 2002 the Sovetskiy District Court of Ryazan returned the particulars of claim of 12 July 2002 to the applicant and ordered him to correct certain inconsistencies by 15 August 2002.
31. It appears that the applicant did not comply with the court's order.

II. Relevant domestic law

32. The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure at the material time is summed up in the Court's judgment in the case of Ryabykh (see Ryabykh v. Russia, No. 52854/99, §§ 31 - 42, ECHR 2003-IX).

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account
of supervisory review

33. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 that the supervisory review decision of 10 August 2001 violated the principle of legal certainty. The applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that in breach of the right to a fair and public hearing neither he nor his lawyer were summoned to the supervisory review hearing held by the Supreme Court of Russia on 10 August 2001. Insofar as relevant, these Articles read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... 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

34. The Government asserted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim as the Presidium decision of 10 August 2001, which had allegedly been taken in violation of the principle of legal certainty, was quashed on 12 November 2003, and that a court judgment in civil proceedings, acknowledging an alleged breach of the Convention rights, may constitute in itself sufficient redress (Enders v. Germany, No. 25040/94, Commission decision of 12 April 1996; Katayeva and Katayev v. Russia (dec.), No. 45550/99, 6 July 2004).
35. 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).
36. In the present case the authorities have, indeed, acknowledged a violation of the applicant's rights in the first set of re-trial proceedings and restored the validity of the first judgment in the applicant's favour.
37. Still, the second set of re-trial was insufficient by itself to eliminate the adverse effects of the quashed decisions, and the notion of "redress" required some form of tangible compensation (see Chervonenko v. Russia, No. 54882/00, § 37, 29 January 2009; conversely, Katayeva and Katayev, cited above). Indeed, the modification made in the first round of the supervisory review proceedings frustrated the applicant's reliance on the judgment in his favour and brought to naught its beneficial effect for a prolonged period of time, that is from 10 August 2001 when the Presidium of the Supreme Court modified the said judgment, to 12 November 2003 when the v



> 1 2 3 4 5 ... 6 7

	Поделиться:	Tweet