r the applicant's initiative, the Presidium of the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court quashed these judgments by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
15. On 2 February 2007 the Nizhegorodskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod held against the applicant. It deprived the applicant of the title to the disputed flat on the grounds that the sales agreement had been null and void. The court also ordered that company P. pay the applicant compensation for the flat and that the applicant and her daughter be evicted from the flat.
16. On 24 April 2007 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
II. Relevant domestic law
17. The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure in 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 of the Convention
18. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the final judgment in her favour 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..."
19. The Government contested that argument. They argued, inter alia, that the supervisory review had been compatible with the Convention as the application for supervisory review had been lodged by a party to the proceedings. They also referred to that the applicant herself had subsequently successfully applied for supervisory review.
A. Admissibility
20. 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
21. 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).
22. 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).
23. In the present case the judgments were quashed because the Presidium disagreed with the assessment made by the inferior courts (see paragraph 12 above), which is not in itself an exceptional circumstance warranting the quashing (see Kot v. Russia, No. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007).
24. The fact that the decision of the Presidium was subsequently quashed on a further application for supervisory review could not be said to improve legal certainty in the applicant's case (see Volkova v. Russia, No. 48758/99, § 33, 5 April 2005).
25. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
26. 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."
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
