1. Article 6 of the Convention
19. The Court reiterates its constant case-law to the effect that the quashing by way of supervisory review of a judicial decision which has become final and binding may render the litigant's right to a court illusory and infringe the principle of legal certainty (see, among many other authorities, {Brumarescu} v. Romania [GC], No. 28342/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-VII; Ryabykh v. Russia, No. 52854/99, §§ 56 - 58, 24 July 2003). Departures from that principle are justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see, mutatis mutandis, Ryabykh, cited above, § 52).
20. Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the judgment of 25 October 2002 was set aside by way of a supervisory review solely on the ground that the lower court had incorrectly applied the substantive law. The Court reiterates its constant approach that in the absence of a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings a party's disagreement with the assessment made by the first instance court is not a circumstance of a substantial and compelling character warranting the quashing of a binding and enforceable judgment and re-opening of the proceedings on the applicant's claim (see Dovguchits v. Russia, No. 2999/03, § 30, 7 June 2007; and Kot v. Russia, No. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007). The Government did not put forward any arguments which would enable the Court to reach a different conclusion in the present two cases. There has been, accordingly, a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
2. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
21. The Court notes that the applicant had been successful in a new round of the court proceedings after the quashing and that as a result of the proceedings he had received the amount which equalled the initial one made in his favour by the final judgment of 25 October 2002. 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 the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Zasurtsev v. Russia, No. 67051/01, §§ 53 - 55, 27 April 2006, Kurinnyy v. Russia, No. 36495/02, § 38, 12 June 2008).
II. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
22. The applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he was not in possession of an effective domestic remedy against the quashing of the final judgment in his favour.
23. 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.
24. However, having found above that the supervisory review breached the applicant's substantive rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint about the absence of effective remedies with regard to the proceedings begot by that supervisory review (see Sitkov v. Russia, No. 55531/00, § 39, 18 January 2007).
III. Other alleged violations of the Convention
25. The applicant complained, without referring to the Convention, that the judgment of 25 October 2002 had remained unenforced for six months and that the initial award had not been index-linked until 12 March 2004, when the obligation to upgrade the compensation in line with inflation was quashed by the Presidium of the Pskov Regional Court.
26. It was uncontested by the parties that at the material time the Russian law of civil procedure did not provide for any ordinary appeal against a decision by which the final judgement had been quashed by way of a supervisory review. In the absence of an effective remedy the Court concludes that it was the very act of qua
> 1 2 3 4 5
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
