o a cash payment. In September 2005 the bailiffs attached the council's bank accounts and means of transport.
7. In August 2004 the applicants and the council reached a settlement, but the council defaulted on its promise.
8. On the council's request, on 20 March 2006 the Presidium of the Stavropol Regional Court quashed the judgment and ordered a rehearing. The presidium found that the council had been the wrong defendant, and that the district court had awarded a flat bigger than the applicants had been entitled to.
9. In the course of the rehearing, on 22 October 2007 the applicants withdrew their claims and the proceedings were closed.
10. In December 2007 the applicants were offered a flat of 124.8 sq. m in a house in the centre of Stavropol, but they refused to accept it insisting that the flat should be of 150 sq. m. In the meantime, in 2006 - 07 the authorities subsidised the applicants' rent.
II. Relevant domestic law
11. Under section 9 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 21 July 1997, a bailiff must enforce a judgment within two months.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
on account of supervisory review
12. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the supervisory review of the judgment. Insofar 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.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."
A. Admissibility
13. The Government argued that this complaint was inadmissible. The supervisory review had been initiated by a party to the litigation, and the applicants had been aware of these proceedings. Annulment of binding judgments was legitimate in a democratic society and known, for example, to such countries as Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Besides, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe had been satisfied that Russia's supervisory-review procedure had been improved (ResDH(2006)1, 8 February 2006; CM/Inf/DH(2005)20, 23 March 2005). Supervisory review had been applied only in exceptional cases. In the present case, it had been applied to correct the district court's misinterpretation of material law. There had been no interference with the applicants' possessions, because the State had not contested as such their right to a service flat.
14. The applicants maintained their complaint.
15. 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
16. The Court has earlier found a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 where, like in the present case, supervisory review was used to quash a binding judgment on the ground of an alleged misinterpretation of material law (see, for example, Kot v. Russia, No. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007). There is no reason to depart from that finding
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8 ... 9
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
