ained under Article 6 of the Convention that the appeal judgment 8 June 2004 had been quashed by way of supervisory review on 18 August 2004. In so far as relevant, this Article 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..."
13. The Government contested that argument. They argued, inter alia, that the supervisory review had been compatible with the Convention as it was the only possibility to correct a judicial error, which was fundamental; that the public prosecutor participated in the hearings in accordance with the law and therefore could apply for supervisory review, and this application was lodged and the case reviewed within a very short period of time.
A. Admissibility
14. 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
15. 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).
16. The Court further 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, among other authorities, Sobelin and Others, cited above, §§ 57 - 58, and Bodrov v. Russia, No. 17472/04, § 31, 12 February 2009).
17. In the present case the final and binding appeal judgment was quashed for wrong findings of fact, which is not in itself an exceptional circumstance warranting the quashing (see Kot v. Russia, No. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007).
18. The respondent State's argument that the public prosecutor could have applied for supervisory review is irrelevant, as the other party to the proceedings had earlier applied for it anyway.
19. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
20. 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."
A. Damage
21. The applicant claimed 997,623.70 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of pecuniary damage. He took the sums awarded to him by the final judgment (RUB 157,427.98 of outstanding salary, RUB 5,000 of non-pecuniary damages and RUB 4,000 of legal fees), and added the sums he could have received as a salary had the judgment not been quashed by way of supervisory review.
22. He also claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
23. The Government noted that no satisfaction should be awarded since the applicant's rights were not violated and he had failed to substantiate his allegedly excessive and unreasonable claims.
24. The Court reiterates that in general the most appropriate form of redress in respect of violations found is to put applicants as far as possible in the position they would have been in if the Convention requirements had not been disregarded (see, amongst other authorities, Piersack v. Belgium (Article 50), 26 October 1984, § 12, Series A No. 85, p. 16, § 12 and Dovguchits v. Russia, No. 2999/03, § 4
> 1 2 3
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
