Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 25.02.2010 «Дело Коровина (Korovina) против России» [англ.]

n and Others v. Russia (Nos. 30672/03, et seq., §§ 33 - 42, 3 May 2007).

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 on account
of supervisory review

15. The applicant complained in substance under Article 6 of the Convention that the final judgment of 21 April 2003, as amended by the appeal judgment of 2 June 2003, had been quashed by way of supervisory review. In so far as relevant, this Article reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."
16. The Government contested that argument. They argued, inter alia, that the supervisory review had been compatible with the Convention as it was aimed to correct a judicial error.

A. Admissibility

17. The Court notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

18. The Court reiterates that for the sake of legal certainty implicitly required by Article 6, final judgments should generally be left intact. They may be disturbed only to correct fundamental errors. The mere possibility of there being two views on the subject is not a ground for re-examination (see Ryabykh v. Russia, No. 52854/99, §§ 51 - 52, ECHR 2003-IX).
19. The Court reiterates that it has frequently found violations of the principle of legal certainty and of the right to a court in the supervisory-review proceedings governed by the Code of Civil Procedure in force since 2003 (see, amongst other authorities, Sobelin and Others, cited above, §§ 57 - 58, and Bodrov v. Russia, No. 17472/04, § 31, 12 February 2009).
20. In the present case the Presidium disagreed with the assessment made by the first-instance and appeal courts which is not, in itself, an exceptional circumstance warranting the quashing of a binding and enforceable judgment (see Kot v. Russia, No. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007). Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

II. Other alleged violations of the Convention

21. The applicant further complained in substance under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the same quashing via supervisory review. She also complained under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the outcome of the proceedings.
22. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

23. 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."
24. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court makes no award under Article 41 of the Convention.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Declares the complaint under Article 6 concerning supervisory review admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the quashing of the final judgment of 21 April 2003, as amended by the a



> 1 2 3

	Поделиться:	Tweet