via supervisory review on 26 December 2002. In so far as relevant, these Articles 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.[...]"
15. The Government contested that argument. They argued that the supervisory review had been compatible with the Convention as the lower courts had made a fundamental judicial error. They did not specify the substance of the error.
A. Admissibility
16. 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. Article 6 of the Convention
(a) Supervisory review: legal certainty
17. 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. Their review should not be treated as an appeal in disguise, and the mere possibility of there being two views on the subject is not a ground for re-examination (see Ryabykh, cited above, §§ 51 - 52).
18. 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 former Code of Civil Procedure as it allowed final judgments in the applicants' favour to be set aside by higher courts following applications by state officials, whose power to make such applications was not subject to any time-limit (see, among other authorities, Ryabykh, cited above, §§ 51 - 56; Volkova v. Russia, No. 48758/99, §§ 34 - 36, 5 April 2005; and Roseltrans v. Russia, No. 60974/00, §§ 27 - 28, 21 July 2005).
19. Having examined the materials submitted to it, the Court observes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. The final judgment was quashed solely for a reassessment of the evidence (see paragraph 12 above). No fundamental error had been found. Therefore the reversal of the final judgment was not justified by exceptional and compelling reasons and was therefore in breach of the legal certainty requirement. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
(b) Supervisory review: procedural issues
20. The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of an infringement of his right to a fair hearing, in that he had not been informed about the hearing in the supervisory-review proceedings on 26 December 2002.
21. The Court notes that the very application of supervisory-review proceedings constituted a violation of the applicant's right to a fair hearing (see paragraphs 17 - 19 above). Therefore, the Court does not consider it necessary to decide whether the alleged lack of participation by the applicant, taken separately, would render the proceedings before the supervisory-review court unfair.
2. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
22. The Court observes that under the final judgment, the applicant obtained title to half of the contested flat. The judgment thus created an asset within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Vasilopoulou v. Greece, No. 47541/99, § 22, 21 March 2002, and Malinovskiy v. Russia, No. 41302/02, § 43, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts)). The quas
> 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
