or lodging this part of the application to the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Sardin v. Russia (dec.), No. 69582/01, ECHR 2004-II). The Court further notes that the quashing of a final judgment is an instantaneous act, which does not create a continuing situation, even if it entails a re-opening of the proceedings as in the instant case (see Sitokhova v. Russia (dec.), No. 55609/00, 2 September 2004). In the present case the final judgment of 10 March 1999 was quashed by the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court sometime before 29 February 2000. The Court therefore finds it established that on that date the judgment of 10 March 1999 ceased to be binding and enforceable. There is no indication in the file that the applicant was not promptly notified of the Presidium's decision to quash the judgment of 10 March 1999. However, it was not until 9 September 2002, more than six months after the decision had been quashed, that the applicant complained to the Court that the authorities had failed to enforce the judgment of 10 March 1999.
35. It follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
III. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the quashing
of the judgment of 17 December 2001, as upheld on appeal
on 19 February 2002
36. The applicant complained that the quashing of the final judgment of 17 December 2001, as upheld on appeal on 19 February 2002, made in his favour violated his "right to a court" and his right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of these provisions are cited above.
A. Submissions by the parties
37. The Government argued that Article 6 of the Convention was inapplicable to the proceedings against the Central Bank and the ARKO as the proceedings did not concern the applicant's civil rights or obligations. In the Government's view, the proceedings merely pertained to the enforcement of the judgment issued in the applicant's favour. They insisted that the complaint should be dismissed as incompatible ratione materiae. In alternative, the Government argued that the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court had quashed the judgments in the applicant's favour with a view to correcting the judicial error committed by the lower courts.
38. The applicant averred that the quashing of the final judgments had irremediably impaired the principle of legal certainty and had deprived him of the right to receive money he had been entitled to receive.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(a) Admissibility
39. As to the Government's objection to the applicability of Article 6, the Court reiterates that under its case-law, for Article 6 § 1 in its "civil" limb to be applicable, there must be a dispute ("contestation" in the French text) over a "right" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law. The dispute must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise. The outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question. As the Court has consistently held, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences are not sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 47, Series A No. 43; Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 56, Series A No. 294-B; and Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 44, Series A No. 327-A). Furthermore,
> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 17 ... 18 19
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
