official or by a party to the proceedings when the latter had not made use of the ordinary appeal procedure (see, among others, Nelyubin v. Russia, No. 14502/04, §§ 29 - 30, 2 November 2006). The Court does not find any reason to depart from these findings in the present case, since the Government did not point to any exceptional circumstances that would have prevented the respondent authority from raising the relevant issues of application of the domestic law on appeal (see Petrov v. Russia, No. 7061/02, § 19, 21 December 2006).
31. The Court further observes that the judgment of 12 May 2003 was set aside by way of a supervisory review on the grounds that the Vologda Town Court had incorrectly applied the substantive law. The Court reiterates its constant approach that in the absence of a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings a party's disagreement with the assessment made by the first-instance and appeal courts is not a circumstance of a substantial and compelling character warranting the quashing of a binding and enforceable judgment and re-opening of the proceedings on the applicant's claim (see Dovguchits v. Russia, No. 2999/03, § 30, 7 June 2007; and Kot v. Russia, No. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007).
32. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the quashing of the final judgment of 12 May 2003 by way of supervisory-review proceedings.
b. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
33. The Court observes that by virtue of the judgment of 12 May 2003 the applicant's pension was considerably increased. The quashing of the enforceable judgment frustrated the applicant's reliance on a binding judicial decision and deprived him of an opportunity to receive the money he had legitimately expected to receive. Furthermore, following the quashing, on 22 January 2004, as upheld on 20 February 2004, the domestic court ordered the applicant to return to the respondent authority the amount he had already received pursuant to the judgment of 12 May 2003. In these circumstances, even assuming that the interference was lawful and pursued a legitimate aim, the Court considers that the quashing of the enforceable judgment of 12 May 2003 by way of supervisory review placed an excessive burden on the applicant and was incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. There has therefore been a violation of that Article.
II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
34. The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about forgery of evidence, the bias and insufficient independence of the national courts in the pension proceedings, and about incorrect application of the domestic law by the domestic courts in these proceedings. He also referred to Articles 14 and 17 in respect of his grievances.
35. The Court has examined these complaints as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, it finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
36. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
A. Damage
37. The applicant claimed RUB 88,779.53 in respect of pecuniary damage, of which RUB 39,171.16 represented the sum he had had to repay to the respondent authority pursu
> 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
