parties' submissions
1. The Government
21. The Government argued that the applicant had not raised a legal certainty issue in his application to the Court, but only challenged the fairness of those proceedings and accuracy of the Commissariat's submissions in their application for the supervisory review. Thus, even having a right to investigate proprio motu whether the facts at consideration disclosed other violations of the Convention than those stated in the application, the Court had raised the legal certainty issue outside the six months time-limit established by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
22. They further claimed that the dispute concerning the calculation of pension belonged to the realm of public law and fell outside the area of "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6. They also argued that the proceedings had not established the applicant's property right, because the Presidium had rejected his claims in full, and the domestic law did not give him a "legitimate expectation" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to receive an increased pension. The supervisory-review proceedings were held in compliance with the domestic law requirements, and the Presidium had reversed the judgment because of a serious violation of substantive law. They provided detailed information on the material norms allegedly misinterpreted by the first instance court. The quashing had been lawful, pursued a legitimate aim of correction of a judicial error, and was in the interests of prevention of violations of the rights and legal interests of other persons. Civil procedure of other countries, for example Austria, Germany, and Switzerland had also allowed for the annulment of binding judgments. Besides, the Council of Europe had been satisfied with reforms of the supervisory-review procedure in Russia.
23. With reference to the Fadin v. Russia case (No. 58079/00, § 34, 27 July 2006) they further argued that the applicant himself had asked for further supervisory review of the judgment of the Presidium of the Vologda Regional Court. Accordingly, he could not claim to be a victim of the alleged breach of the principle of legal certainty. They finally argued that he could not be considered as a victim, since in March 2007 his pension had been increased with the effect as from 1 January 2005.
2. The applicant
24. The applicant maintained his claims. He submitted that the Commissariat could have lodged an ordinary appeal against the judgment of 12 May 2003, but had not done so, having preferred to apply for supervisory review four months after the judgment had become final. The Presidium of the Vologda Regional Court wrongly applied the domestic law. Thus, the quashing was in breach of the legal certainty principle. The order to return to the Commissariat the amount paid pursuant to the judgment of 12 May 2003 had had no basis in the domestic law.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
25. As regards the Court's competence to examine the matter and compliance with the six months rule, the Court reiterates that it has jurisdiction to review in the light of the entirety of the Convention's requirements the circumstances complained of by an applicant and, notably, is free to attribute to the facts of the case, as found to be established on the evidence before it, a characterisation in law different from that given by the applicant or, if need be, to view the facts in a different manner (see Foti and Others v. Italy, 10 December 1982, Series A No. 56, § 44, and Smirnova and Smirnova v. Russia (dec.), Nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, 3 October 2002). The Court further notes that the application form submitted on 6 April 2004, that is within the six months time limit, set out the relevant facts concerning the supervisory re
> 1 2 3 4 5 ... 6 7
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
