v. Russia, No. 52854/99, ECHR 2003-IX). It had the same characteristics which on many occasions have led the Court to conclude that supervisory review in civil proceedings was against the "legal certainty" principle protected by Article 6, namely that decisions of the lower courts in the commercial court system were "liable to challenge indefinitely", and "on an application made by a State official", without a request by a party (see Ryabykh ibid., § 56). In sum, the Court acknowledges that the structural procedural problems which it has identified in previous cases were present in the present case as well.
29. In the present case the Government put forward three groups of argument to justify the departure from the principle of legal certainty. First, they claimed that the supervisory review was instigated within a "reasonable time". The Court notes that more than ten months elapsed from the decision of the Federal Commercial Court until the instigation of the supervisory review. In the opinion of the Court, that delay may arguably by itself raise an issue under Article 6 of the Convention, especially given that the time-limits for bringing an "ordinary" appeal or a cassation appeal were limited to one month. In any event, the Court considers that it was the absence of any time-limit in respect of the possible reopening of the case which created the uncertainty for the litigants. The fact that it took the authorities less than one year to instigate the review in the present case does not affect this fundamental problem of uncertainty.
30. The second argument of the Government is that the applicant association knew that the decision in its favour was liable to challenge by way of supervisory review. However, in the eyes of the Court the crux of the problem was that the applicant association could not have foreseen when the supervisory review would take place if it would take place at all. Therefore, this argument should also be dismissed as also in this respect the problem of uncertainty persisted.
31. Finally, the Government claimed that the supervisory review of the decision in the applicant association's favour had been justified because the lower courts had acted outside their jurisdiction, and thus aimed at remedying a fundamental defect.
32. The Court would refer to its finding in the case of Ryabykh (cited above) where it held as follows, in so far as relevant to the instant case:
"51. ...One of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law is the principle of legal certainty, which requires, among other things, that where the courts have finally determined an issue, their ruling should not be called into question...
52. Legal certainty presupposes respect for the principle of res judicata..., that is the principle of the finality of judgments. This principle underlines that no party is entitled to seek a review of a final and binding judgment merely for the purpose of obtaining a rehearing and a fresh determination of the case. ...
56. ...The right of a litigant to a court would be... illusory if a Contracting State's legal system allowed a judicial decision which had become final and binding to be quashed by a higher court on an application made by a State official."
33. The Court, however, stresses that the Ryabykh judgment contained an important reservation, which, at least implicitly, admitted that supervisory review could be justified in particular circumstances. The Court said (see § 52 ibid):
"...The 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. A departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character".
34. In the case of Kot v. Russia (No. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007), the Court developed that logic. It held as follows:
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 15 ... 16 17
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
