CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 septembre 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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 67 August-September 2004 Sitokhova v. Russia (dec.) - 55609/00 Decision 2.9.2004 [Section I] Article 35 Article 35-1 Six-month period Quashing of a final judgment in supervisory review proceedings: inadmissible The applicant, who had been involved in a contract for the acquisition of a house, brought proceedings related to this contract and the District Court granted her claim in a judgment of 13 July 1998 (which became final shortly afterwards). However, the judgment was quashed in supervisory review proceedings by the Presidium of the Supreme Court on 29 January 1999. In a fresh examination of the case the applicant’s claim was dismissed. A new application for supervisory review was rejected by the Supreme Court. Inadmissible under Article 35: Russian law did not provide at the material time for any ordinary appeal against a ruling adopted by way of supervisory review. Such a ruling could subsequently be quashed and the original judgment reinstated by way of new supervisory review proceedings. However, such proceedings could not be set in motion by a party and, if pursued, would not be conducive to an improvement of legal certainty. In the absence of an effective remedy, it was the very act of quashing the first instance judgment on 29 January 1999 that had triggered the start of the six month time limit, and as the application had been lodged with the Court on 18 August 1999 it was out of time.   © 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