CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 novembre 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 69 November 2004 Tregubenko v. Ukraine - 61333/00 Judgment 2.11.2004 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Supervisory review of a final and binding judgment: violation Facts : In 1993 the Supreme Court quashed a judgment of the Regional Court and upheld earlier judgments in the applicant’s favour. The judgment of the Supreme Court was final. However, it was not fully enforced for several years and in 1998 the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court lodged a request for supervisory review of the judgments in the applicant’s favour. The Plenary of the Supreme Court allowed the request and upheld the original judgment of the City Court in 1991 rejecting the applicant’s claim for lack of jurisdiction. Law : Article 6 § 1 – At the material time, there was no time limit on submission of a request for supervisory review. By allowing the request in the present case, the Supreme Court had nullified an entire judicial process which had ended in a final and binding decision. The issue was one of legal certainty rather than interference by the executive and it was therefore irrelevant that the request had been made by a judge rather than by a prosecutor, as in Brumarescu v. Romania (judgment of 28 October 1999). The principle of legal certainty had been infringed. Moreover, the fact that the Supreme Court had held that the jurisdiction of the courts was excluded in relation to certain civil disputes was contrary to the right of access to a court. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The quashing of the final judgment in the applicant’s favour had constituted a deprivation of property and had upset the fair balance, imposing on him an individual and excessive burden. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court made awards in respect of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs and expenses.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes