Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 02.04.2009 "Дело "Кузьмина (Kuzmina) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Kuzmina v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina {Vajic},
Anatoly Kovler,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 12 March 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 15242/04) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Ms Zinaida Mikhaylovna Kuzmina ("the applicant"), on 29 March 2004.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr V. Gandzyuk, a lawyer practising in Ryazan. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 13 November 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

4. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Ryazan.
5. She is a military servicewoman. From January 2000 to February 2001 she served in the Russian contingent of the UN Peacekeeping Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
6. Upon her return, the applicant brought proceedings against the head of her military unit to secure payment of her daily allowance for her service abroad.
7. On 25 July 2003 the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison partly granted the applicant's claim and ordered the military unit to pay the applicant 346,050.70 Russian roubles (RUB) in remuneration and RUB 1,000 in expenses for legal advice.
8. The military unit did not lodge an ordinary appeal, and on 22 August 2003 the judgment became binding and enforceable.
9. However, following the respondent's request, on 19 November 2003 the Presidium of the Military Court of the Moscow Command quashed the judgment of 25 July 2003 by way of supervisory review and dismissed the applicant's claims in full. The reason given for the quashing of the judgment was the "wrongful application of substantive law by the first-instance court".

II. Relevant domestic law

10. The Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation provides as follows:
Article 362. Grounds on which appeal courts may quash or alter judicial decisions
"1. The grounds on which appeal courts may quash or alter judicial decisions are:
...
(4) a violation or incorrect application of substantive or procedural law."
Article 387. Grounds on which judicial decisions may be quashed or altered by way of supervisory review
"Judicial decisions of lower courts may be quashed or altered by way of supervisory review on the grounds of substantial violations of substantive or procedural legal provisions."
Article 390. Competence of the supervisory-review court
"1. Having examined the case by way of supervisory review, the court may...
(2) quash the judicial decision issued by a court of first, second or supervisory-review instance in whole or in part and remit the matter for fresh examination...
(5) quash or alter the judicial decision issued by a court of first, second or supervisory-review instance and issue a new judicial decision, without remitting the matter for fresh examination, if the subst



> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 12 13 14

	Поделиться:	Tweet