did not attend the hearing. It does not appear from the case-file that the applicants or their counsel had been informed of the supervisory-review proceedings or that they were able to take part in these proceedings.
8. On 9 and 10 April 2003 the Ryazan Garnison Military Court reconsidered the cases and dismissed the applicants' claims. These judgments were upheld on appeal by the Moscow Circuit Military Court on 10 and 17 June 2003 and thus became final.
9. The judgments of 13 and 20 December 2001 in favour of S. Panchenko were enforced on 3 April 2006 and 24 April 2003 respectively. On 2 June 2006 the Ryazan Garnison Military Court partially granted this applicant's claim for compensation of the inflation losses due to the delay in the execution of the judgment of 13 December 2001. The court awarded compensation for the inflation losses occurred between 1 January 2006 and 31 March 2006, i.e. a sum of 12428.64 RUB instead of 124,350.48 RUB claimed by the applicant for the total delay in enforcement.
II. Relevant domestic law
10. The relevant domestic law as in force in the material time is summed up in the Court's judgment in the case of Ryabykh (see Ryabykh v. Russia, No. 52854/99, § 31 - 42, ECHR 2003-IX).
11. In 2001 - 2005 the judgments delivered against the public authorities were executed in accordance with a special procedure established, inter alia, by the Government's Decree No. 143 of 22 February 2001 and, subsequently, by Decree No. 666 of 22 September 2002, entrusting execution to the Ministry of Finance (see further details in Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia, Nos. 2191/03, 3104/03, 16094/03 and 24486/03, §§ 33 - 39, 21 June 2007).
THE LAW
I. Joinder of the applications
12. Given that these six applications concern the same facts and complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to consider them in a single judgment.
II. Alleged violation of Article 6 and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 on account of the quashing of the
judgments in the applicants' favour
13. The applicants complained that the quashing by way of supervisory review of the binding and enforceable judgments of 11 December 2001 delivered by the Ryazan Garnison Military Court in their favour violated their rights under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which insofar as relevant, provide as follows:
Article 6 § 1
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time 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..."
A. Admissibility
14. The Government argued that Article 6 of the Convention was not applicable to the applicants' cases as they were servicemen in the Russian military forces at the material time. Accordingly, their lawsuits in the Russian military courts could not be qualified as "civil" and thus were not protected by Article 6.
15. The applicants contested this argument. Relying on the Court's case-law, they submitted that their access to courts was allowed by domestic legislation and that their claims had been effectively considered by domestic military courts. They concluded that Article 6 was applicable.
16. The Court notes that it has already considered the argument submitted by the Government and rejected it in previous similar cases (see, among other authorities, Dovguchits v. Russia, No. 2999/03, §§ 19 - 24, 7 June 2007).
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
