CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 novembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B480138 { width:266.49pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4070A5A6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B53EBCB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:6pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   20 November 2009     FIRST SECTION Application no. 52166/08 by Aleksandr Mikhaylovich RYABKIN and 4 other applications (nos. 8174/09, 8526/09, 10775/09 and 41760/09) against Russia STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.   Case of Ryabkin (application no.   52166/08) The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Ryabkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Sertolovo, the Leningrad Region. The applicant is entitled to various social benefits in connection with his previous involvement in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. On 19 February 2007 the applicant sued the Military Commissioner of the Leningrad Region claiming shortfalls in payment of social benefits and adjustment of regular payments for the future. On 10 April 2007 the court awarded the applicant 67,115.35 Russian Roubles (RUB) for arrears. It also awarded him the sums of RUB   1,798.85 and RUB   2,998.10 to be paid on monthly and yearly basis respectively, with subsequent adjustment in accordance with the inflation rate (indexation). The judgment was not appealed against and became legally binding and enforceable on 21   April 2007. The defendant did not complied with the judgment in full and applied to the Saint-Petersburg City Court for supervisory review. While the defendant’s application was dated 27   December   2007, the court considered that the date of application was 11   January 2008. The judge of the court decided on 17 January 2008 to request the case-file from the lower court and, on 1 February 2008, to send the case for supervisory review by the Presidium of Saint-Petersburg City Court. The applicant lodged an objection, claiming that the application for supervisory review was inadmissible under the new provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in force since 7 January 2008 (Law No.   330 -ФЗ of 4   December   2008). He notably referred to the expiry of the six-month time-limit set for supervisory review applications and to the defendant’s failure to exhaust the cassation remedy prior to its application for supervisory review. On 27 February 2008 the Presidium of Saint-Petersburg City Court modified the judgment of 10 April 2007. The court referred to substantial violations of substantive and procedural law as permissible grounds for quashing or modifying judicial decisions. The court decreased the sums awarded to the applicant: he was awarded RUB   61,013.95 for arrears and the sums of RUB   1,635.32 and RUB   2,725.55 to be paid on monthly and yearly basis respectively, with subsequent adjustment in accordance with the inflation rate (indexation). In its judgment the court did not respond to the applicant’s objection as to the alleged inadmissibility of the supervisory review application. Case of Volokitin (application no. 8526/09) The applicant, Mr Aleksey Nikolayevich Volokitin, is a Russian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Saint-Petersburg. The applicant sold a plot of land to A. but the latter allegedly failed to pay the full price agreed upon by both parties. The applicant sued A. in the Lomonosovskiy District Court of the Leningrad Region asking the sale contract to be declared null and void. On 27 February 2007 the court dismissed the claim. On 7 June 2007 the Leningrad Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and sent it back to the same court for a fresh consideration. On 5 May 2008, the Lomonosovskiy District Court granted the applicant’s claims, declaring the contract null and void. On 17 July 2008 the judgment was upheld on appeal by the Leningrad Regional Court and became final. On an unspecified date the defendant applied to the Leningrad Regional Court for supervisory review of the judgment. On 3 October 2008 the Presidium of the Leningrad Regional Court quashed the judgment on supervisory review on the ground of violations of substantive law by the lower court. The Presidium dismissed the applicant’s claims in full. The applicant submitted that he had not been informed of the supervisory review proceedings. On 26 November 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s supervisory review complaint against the judgment of 3 October 2008. In the Supreme Court’s view the Presidium of the Regional Court rightly quashed the lower court’s judgment on the ground of significant violations of substantive law. Referring to the principle of legal certainty, the Supreme Court found no exceptional circumstances warranting review of the Presidium’s judgment.   Case of Sheyman (application no.   8174/09) The applicant, Mr Yuriy Petrovich Sheyman, is an Israeli national who was born in 1926 and lives in Bat Yam, Israel. He is represented before the Court by Mr R.A. Zarbeyev, a lawyer practising in Saint Petersburg. The applicant emigrated to Israel from the USSR in 1990 and obtained Israeli nationality. Before emigration he was receiving an old-age pension from the Soviet authorities. Once the applicant left the USSR, the payments were discontinued in accordance with the USSR pension law applied at the material time. On 4 August 2006 the applicant brought civil proceedings against the competent regional department of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (the Pension Fund) requesting restoration of the payments. On 4 December 2006 the Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan found for the applicant. On 12 January 2007 the Astrakhan Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal and it became binding and enforceable. On 10 July 2007 the Pension Fund lodged an application for quashing of these judgments by way of supervisory review. The application was addressed to the President of the Supreme Court. On 27 July 2007 a judge of the Supreme Court requested the case-file from the district court and suspended enforcement of the judgment of 4   December 2006. On 4 December 2007 another judge of the Supreme Court sent the case for supervisory review to the Astrakhan Regional Court. On 22 January 2008 the Astrakhan Regional Court dismissed the supervisory-review application and endorsed the judgment of 4 December 2006, as upheld on 12 January 2007. On 8 April 2008 the Pension Fund lodged another application for supervisory review, again addressed to the President of the Supreme Court. On 24 June 2008 a judge of the Supreme Court sent the case for supervisory review by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court. On 1 August 2008 the Civil Chamber of Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 4 December 2006, as upheld on 12 January 2007, and rejected the applicant’s claims.   Case of Kaplan (application no.   41760/09) The applicant, Ms Filipina Moiseyevna Kaplan, is an Israeli national who was born in 1926 and lives in Holon, Israel. She is represented before the Court by Mr R.A. Zarbeyev, a lawyer practising in Saint Petersburg. The applicant emigrated to Israel from the USSR in 1990 and obtained Israeli nationality. Before emigration he was receiving an old-age pension from the Soviet authorities. Once the applicant left the USSR, the payments were discontinued in accordance with the USSR pension law applied at the material time. On 17 April 2007 the applicant brought civil proceedings against the competent regional department of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (the Pension Fund) requesting restoration of the payments. On 30 October 2007 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Prokopievsk (Kemerovo Region) granted the applicant’s claims in part. On 15 February 2008 the Kemerovo Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. On 3 July 2008 the Pension Fund lodged an application for quashing of these judgments by way of supervisory review. The application was addressed to the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court. On 27 August 2008 a judge of the Supreme Court requested the case-file from the district court and suspended enforcement of the judgment of 30   October 2007. On 21 October 2008 the judge of the Supreme Court sent the case for supervisory review to the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court. On 12 December 2008 the Civil Chamber of Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 30 October 2007, as upheld on 15 February 2008, in the part granting the applicant’s claims, and found against the applicant.   Case of Vasilyeva (application no.   10775/09) The applicant, Ms Svetlana Gennadyevna Vasilyeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Kalinigrad. On 18 August 2003 the applicant bought a flat. A third person, M., was her authorized representative during conclusion of the purchase agreement. On an unspecified date M. was charged with fraud against a bank (Sberbank, hereafter – “the Bank”) and a private person. On 20   April 2005 a judge issued an interlocutory injunction so that the applicant could not sell the flat. On 15 March 2006 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk found M. guilty of fraud. The court found, inter alia , that the de facto owner of the flat was M. as she paid for it and resided in it since 2003. The court ordered seizure of the flat to pay the M.’s debt to the victims of the crime. On 9 July 2009 the Arkhangelsk District Court, acting on appeal, quashed the judgment’s part concerning the seizure of the flat and remitted the issue for fresh consideration in civil proceedings. On an unspecified date the Bank sued M. and the applicant for the flat. On 17 September 2007 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Kaliningrad rejected the Bank’s civil claims and declared that the flat remained the applicant’s property. On 19 December 2007 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal and it became final and binding. On 14 May 2008 the Bank lodged an application for supervisory review of the case. On 18 August 2008 the Presidium of the Kaliningrad Regional Court quashed the judgment of 17   September 2007, as upheld on 19   December 2007, and ordered the flat be seized from the applicant in order to pay the M.’s debt to the Bank. B.     Relevant domestic law Under the Code of Civil Procedure, binding and enforceable judgments are amenable to supervisory review by higher judicial instances at various levels. The supervisory review procedure was repeatedly amended over the past years. The supervisory review procedure in force since 7 January 2008 is summarised in the Court’s recent decision in the case of Martynets ( Martynets v. Russia (dec.), no. 29612/09, 5 November 2009). According to the transitional provisions, the supervisory-review complaints, which have not been examined by the date of entry into force of the Law, shall be examined under the rules in force on the date of application for supervisory review (Article 3 of the Law No.330- ФЗ of 4   December   2007). COMPLAINTS Referring to Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, all applicants complain, either explicitly or in substance, that binding and enforceable judgments in their favour were quashed or, in the case of Ryabkin , modified by way of supervisory review. In the case of Volokitin , the applicant specifically complains that he was not informed of the supervisory review hearing and was not able to attend it. In the case of Sheyman , the applicant also complains of an alleged violation of Article 14 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the authorities’ failure to pay him an old-age pension. In the case of Vasilyeva , the applicant complains of the domestic court’s alleged failure to refer to any evidence in the supervisory review proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   Questions for all cases:   1.     Did the quashing or modification of binding and enforceable judgments in the applicants’ favour by way of supervisory review breach the requirement of legal certainty enshrined in the applicant’s right to a court under Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Ryabykh v.   Russia , no. 52854/99, §§   51-56, ECHR 2003 ‑ IX; Kulkov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 25114/03 et siq ., §§   25-32, 8 January 2009; Martynets v.   Russia (dec.), no. 29612/09, 5 November 2009, and compare with OOO “Link Oil SPB v. Russia (dec.), no.   42600/05, 25 June 2009)   ?   2. Did the quashing of the abovementioned final judgments on supervisory review violate the applicants’ rights to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   Questions specific to certain cases:   Case of Ryabkin (no.   5216608): Was the domestic procedure, as amended since 7 January 2008, respected by the court, which considered the case on supervisory review? Reference is made, in particular, to the fact that the supervisory review was carried out on 27 February 2008 following an application lodged after the expiry of the 6-month’ time-limit and without the cassation remedy having been exhausted by the defendant authority (Article 376 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Law No.   330- ФЗ of 4   December   2007). Reference is also made to wider grounds for supervisory review relied upon by the domestic court (Article 387), notwithstanding the new provisions in force and the guidance provided in this respect by the Supreme Court’s Ruling of 12 February 2008.   Case of Volokitin (no.   8526/09): Was the applicant properly informed of the supervisory-review proceedings and summoned to the hearing held by the Presidium of the Leningrad Regional Court in these proceedings? If not, does this amount to a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention?   Cases of Sheyman (no.   8174/09) and Kaplan (no.   41760/09): Was the domestic procedure, as amended since 7 January 2008, respected by the courts which considered the cases on supervisory review? In particular, were the relevant time-limits complied with? Were the defendant authorities’ applications for supervisory review lawfully allowed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation while the authorities failed previously to apply for supervisory review to the competent regional courts?       ANNEX     Application no. Application name Date of introduction 52166/08 RYABKIN Aleksandr Mikhaylovich 6 July 2008 8174/09 SHEYMAN Yuriy Petrovich 29 December 2008 8526/09 VOLOKITIN Aleksey Nikolayevich 31 December 2008 10775/09 VASILYEVA Svetlana Gennadyevna 3 February 2009 41760/09 KAPLAN Filipina Moiseyevna 16 July 2009