on the same day.
22. Following an application for supervisory review lodged by the defendant, on 20 October 2004 a judge of the Belgorod Regional Court referred the case to its Presidium for consideration on the merits.
23. On 28 October 2004 the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court reassessed the evidence, quashed the judgment of the Sverdlovskiy District Court of 6 July 2004 and the appeal judgment of the Belgorod Regional Court of 17 August 2004 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
24. On 28 December 2004 the Sverdlovskiy District Court awarded Mr Kucherov RUB 19,068 for burial expenses and RUB 10,000 for legal assistance costs.
25. On 15 March 2005 the Belgorod Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for new consideration.
26. On 27 April 2005 the Sverdlovskiy District Court awarded Mr Kucherov RUB 19,068 for burial expenses and dismissed the remainder of the claim.
27. On 21 June 2005 the Belgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
II. Relevant domestic law
28. The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure at the material time is summed up in the Court's judgment in the case of Sobelin and Others (see Sobelin and Others v. Russia, Nos. 30672/03, et seq., §§ 33 - 42, 3 May 2007).
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
29. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the final appeal judgment of 3 August 2004 had been quashed by way of supervisory review on 7 October 2004. Mr Kucherov also complained that the judgment of 6 July 2004 and the appeal judgment of 17 August 2004 were quashed via supervisory review on 28 October 2004. 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..."
30. The Government contested that argument. They argued, inter alia, that the supervisory review had been compatible with the Convention as the inferior courts wrongly assessed the evidence; as the application for supervisory review had been lodged by a party to the proceedings; and as it had been lodged and the case reviewed within a very short period of time.
A. Admissibility
31. The Court notes that the complaints are 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
32. 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).
33. 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, among other authorities, Sobelin and Others, cited above, §§ 57 - 58, and Bodrov v. Russia, No. 17472/04, § 31, 12 February 2009).
34. In the present case the final and binding judgments were quashed because the Presidium disagreed with the assessment made by the inferior courts, which is not in itself an exceptional circumstance warranting the quashing (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
35. The applicants also lo
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
