prived 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. The parties' submissions
23. As regards the case of Mrs Sizintseva, the Government argued that she had not raised a legal certainty issue in her application to the Court, but only challenged the fairness of the domestic proceedings. Thus, even having a right to investigate proprio motu whether the facts at consideration disclosed other violations of the Convention than those stated in the application, the Court had raised the legal certainty issue outside the six months time-limit established by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
24. The Government further submitted, in respect of all cases, that the supervisory review had not breached the principle of legal certainty: it had been preceded by an ordinary appeal, only one supervisory-review instance had been engaged, the request for the quashing had been lodged within six months, it had been initiated by a party to the proceedings and it had been meant to correct a misapplication of material law.
25. They further argued that the supervisory review had aimed at remedying a fundamental defect of the proceedings before the lower courts. They stressed that the lower courts were not competent to rule on compliance of the provisions of the Federal Law of 2 June 2000 with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Instead, they should have introduced a request for review of the constitutionality of the Federal Law in question with the Constitutional Court and suspend the proceedings pending delivery of the relevant ruling. However, they failed to make such request, and no suspension of the proceedings took place. Therefore, the examination of the applicants' cases before the lower courts was tarnished by a fundamental defect, namely abuse of power by the courts and jurisdictional error. In these circumstances, quashing was the only available way to rectify the fundamental defect and to restore legal certainty in the present cases.
26. They further argued that the applicants' rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had not been prejudiced: Mrs Gladkova, V. Plotnikova and I. Plotnikova had received compensation for the cars before the litigation, while the other applicants had failed to apply for redemption of the promissory notes.
27. The applicants maintained their claims.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
28. As regards the Court's competence to examine Mrs Sizintseva's case and as concerns compliance with the six months rule, the Court reiterates that it has jurisdiction to review in the light of the entirety of the Convention's requirements the circumstances complained of by an applicant and, notably, is free to attribute to the facts of the case, as found to be established on the evidence before it, a characterisation in law different from that given by the applicant or, if need be, to view the facts in a different manner (see Foti and Others v. Italy, 10 December 1982, Series A No. 56, § 44, and Smirnova and Smirnova v. Russia (dec.), Nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, 3 October 2002). The Court further notes that the application form was submitted by Mrs Sizintseva on 7 October 2004, that is within six months from the date of the quashing of the judgment in her favour. The application set out the relevant facts concerning the supervisory review proceedings and made a general claim in relation to Article 6 of the Convention. The Court therefore finds that it may examine whether the proceedings in question disclose a violation of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, C.J.M.E., J.C.D. AND W.A.C.S. v. the Netherlands, Nos. 5100/71 et al, Commission decision of 29 May 1973, and O'Reilly v. Ireland, No. 21624/93, Commission d
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 9 10 11
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
