that there had been an infringement of the applicants' "right to a court" by the very use of the supervisory review procedure, it is not necessary to consider whether the procedural guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention were available in those proceedings (see, for example, Volkova v. Russia, No. 48758/99, § 39, 5 April 2005).
b. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
58. The Court reiterates that the existence of a debt confirmed by a binding and enforceable judgment constitutes the beneficiary's "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Androsov v. Russia, No. 63973/00, § 69, 6 October 2005).
i. Nineteen applicants named in Part A of Annex I
59. As regards the group of nineteen applicants listed in Part A of Annex I, it is not contested between the parties that all judgments in their favour had been executed in full. There is nothing in the file to suggest that the applicants were obliged to repay the respective judgment debts pursuant to the quashing. In these circumstances the Court does not consider it necessary to rule on the question where there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of nineteen applicants named in Part A of Annex I on account of the quashing (see, mutatis mutandis, Zasurtsev v. Russia, No. 67051/01, §§ 53 - 55, 27 April 2006).
ii. Sixty-eight applicants named in Part B of Annex I
60. Regarding the application by Mr Karatayev (application No. 18352/06) the Court notes the Government's submission that the applicant had modified the scope of his claims in the new proceedings. The Court observes that the core issue before it is the quashing of the final and binding judgment, an instantaneous act. Thus, the eventual outcome of the post-quashing proceedings is not directly relevant for the Court's analysis of the quashing complaint (see Ivanova v. Ukraine, No. 74104/01, §§ 35 - 38, 13 September 2005), unless, as a result of the subsequent proceedings, the applicant obtained more than he had had before the supervisory review (see Boris Vasilyev v. Russia, No. 30671/03, § 37, 15 February 2007). This was clearly not the case. Accordingly, the outcome of the subsequent proceedings will not have impact on the Court's findings regarding Mr Karatayev's complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
61. The Court further observes that the quashing of the enforceable judgments frustrated the applicants' reliance on the binding judicial decision and deprived them of an opportunity to receive the money they had legitimately expected to receive (see, among others, Ivanova v. Russia, No. 11697/05, § 23, 24 April 2008, Dmitriyeva v. Russia, No. 27101/04, § 32, 3 April 2008). In each of the sixty-eight cases at hand, at least one domestic judgment had remained unexecuted before the quashing.
62. In these circumstances, even assuming that the interference was lawful and pursued a legitimate aim, the Court considers that the quashing of the enforceable judgments in the applicants' favour by way of supervisory review placed an excessive burden on them and was incompatible with Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1. There has therefore been a violation of that Article in the present sixty-eight cases cited in Part B of Annex I.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account
of non-enforcement
63. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, both cited above, the applicants complained about non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour.
64. In some cases the Government alleged that the applicants had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to them under domestic law. They notably referred to Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure allowing to compla
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 36 37 38
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
