Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.02.2010 «Дело Николай Зайцев (Nikolay Zaytsev) против России» [англ.]

br /> 12. On 30 December 2004 the Commissariat introduced a new application for the supervisory review of the judgments of 24 October 2002 and 12 March 2004 with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
13. On 30 September 2005 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, by way of supervisory review proceedings, quashed the judgment of 25 October 2002 on the ground of incorrect application of the domestic law and remitted the case for a new examination. The Presidium also annulled the judgment of 12 March 2004 insofar as the latter upheld the award made on 25 October 2002.
14. On 27 January 2006 the Pskov Town Court examined the case afresh and granted the applicant's claims in full. The court ordered the Commissariat to pay the applicant RUB 37,896.38 in arrears in food allowance for the period from 1 July 2000 to 31 December 2005 RUB 36,930.96 in arrears in compensation for health damage. The applicant was further awarded RUB 1,640.91 monthly in respect of the food allowance and RUB 6,838.04 in compensation for health damage. On 4 April 2006 the judgment was upheld by the Pskov Regional Court. On 5 May 2006 the award was enforced.

THE LAW

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

15. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the quashing of the judgment in his favour on 30 September 2005. The relevant parts of these provisions 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..."
16. The Government argued that the supervisory review of the judgment had not breached the Convention. It had been initiated by a party to the proceedings within less than one year from the judgment's entry into force. The quashing had been justified because the judgment had been based on a misapplication of law and hence had contained a fundamental defect. The Presidium had not issued a new judgment in the case, but remitted it to the first instance court. Annulment of the binding judgment had been legitimate in a democratic society and had been exercised so as to strike a fair balance between the interests of the applicant and the need to ensure the effectiveness of the system of justice. As regards the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Government submitted, with reference to the judgment of 27 January 2006, that the applicant's claims were granted in full in the new set of the domestic proceedings, and therefore his rights under the above mentioned Article have not been affected.
17. The applicant maintained his claim. He pointed out that the judgment in his favour had been quashed more than two years after it had become final and the application for the supervisory review had been introduced by the Commissariat in violation of the procedural time-limits established in the domestic law. The Commissariat failed to challenge the award by way of introducing an ordinary appeal. Instead, the judgment was annulled on supervisory review in violation of the principle of legal certainty.

A. Admissibility

18. The Court notes that this 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




> 1 2 3 4 ... 5

	Поделиться:	Tweet