CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 novembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 29 November 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 1667/11 Raisa Abdulovna MUTSAYEVA against Russia lodged on 8 December 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the quashing on the basis of newly discovered circumstances, i.e. false testimony of two witnesses as established by the investigator’s decision of 15 September 2008, of a final judgment establishing the applicant’s ownership over a house. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in view of the fact that on 17 June 2010 the Leninskiy District Court of Grozniy quashed the final judgment of 3 April 2008 in the applicant’s favour on the basis of newly discovered circumstances, i.e. on the ground that Mr Inderbiev and Mr Vakhayev had given false testimonies as established by an investigator’s decision of 15 September 2008? In this respect, the parties are expected to comment on the relevance of these testimonies for the findings made by the Leninskiy District Court in its judgment of 3 April 2008 with regard to the applicant’s property rights since that judgment does not directly refer to them and the judgment of 17   June 2010 does not contain any reasoning in this respect.   2.     Was there a breach of the applicant’s right under Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention on account of the quashing of the judgment of 3   April 2008 delivered in the applicant’s favour?