BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF TOLSTOBROV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 11612/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4
March 2010
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Tolstobrov v.
Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 9 February 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 11612/05) against the Russian
Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Russian national, Vladimir Pavlovich
Tolstobrov (“the applicant”), on 11 March 2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr I. Telyatyev, a lawyer practising in
Arkhangelsk. The Russian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former
Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of
Human Rights.
- On
9 November 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to
examine the merits of the application at the same time as its
admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Arkhangelsk.
- The
applicant sued a private company for salary arrears.
- By
judgment of 16 March 2004, the Justice of Peace in the
Varavino-Faktoriya Circuit awarded the applicant 92,073.93 Russian
roubles (RUB) against the defendant company.
- The
defendant company appealed.
- On
16 June 2004, both parties being present in the court-room, the
Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk adjourned the hearing
until 13 July 2004, which was noted in the minutes. The parties were
also notified about the hearing of 13 July 2004 by post, in
accordance with the domestic law. However, the court made a mistake
in the defendant company's address, which never received the summons.
- On
13 July 2004 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, in the
absence of the defendant company's representative, upheld the
judgment on appeal.
- The
defendant company applied for supervisory review of the above
judgments. On 21 September 2004 a judge in the Arkhangelsk
Regional Court granted it leave for supervisory review. On 29
September 2004 the Presidium of the Regional Court set aside the
judgment of 13 July 2004 and ordered a re-examination of the case by
the District Court on the grounds that the defendant company had not
been informed about the hearing of 13 July 2004. The Presidium
found that though the defendant company's representative was present
in the court-room when the district court adjourned the hearing to 13
July 2004, the defendant company could not be considered as duly
informed about it.
- On
26 January 2005 the District Court quashed the judgment of 16 March
2004 and awarded the applicant RUB 38,123.85.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure at
the material time is summed up in the Court's judgment in the case of
Kot v. Russia
(no. 20887/03, § 17, 18 January 2007).
- Under Article 113 of the Code of
Civil Procedure of 2002, in force at the material time, parties to
the proceedings are to be summoned to a hearing by a letter sent by
registered mail with an acknowledgment of receipt, by court summons
with an acknowledgment of receipt, by telegram, by phone or fax or by
any other means which can guarantee a record of the fact that the
summons was sent and was received by the party.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF
SUPERVISORY REVIEW
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and under
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the final judgment of 16 March 2004,
as upheld on 13 July 2004, had been quashed by way of supervisory
review on 29 September 2004. In so far as relevant, these Articles
read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ...
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.[...]”
- The
Government contested that argument. They argued, inter alia,
that the supervisory review had been compatible with the Convention
as it was aimed to correct a judicial error, namely the failure of
the appeal court to notify the defendant company about the appeal
hearings.
A. Admissibility
- The Court notes that the complaint is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Article 6
- The
Court reiterates that for the sake of legal certainty implicitly
required by Article 6, the mere possibility of there being two views
on the subject is not a ground for re examination of final
judgments and they should generally be left intact. They may be
disturbed only to correct fundamental errors (see Ryabykh
v. Russia,
no. 52854/99, §§ 51-52,
ECHR 2003 IX). The Court will hence have to determine if
the grounds for the quashing of the applicant's judgment fell within
this exception (see Protsenko v. Russia, no. 13151/04, § 29,
31 July 2008).
- In the present case the final judgment was quashed for
the district court's failure to duly inform the defendant company
about the appeal hearing of 13 July 2004.
- The
Court considers that the circumstances referred to were in their
nature and significance such as to justify the quashing of the final
judgment and that this was not inconsistent with the principle of
legal certainty (see Protsenko, cited above, §§ 33,
34). Indeed, by hearing the case unbeknownst to the defendant company
the District Court deprived the trial of its requisite adversarial
character (see Tishkevich v. Russia,
no. 2202/05, § 25, 4 December 2008).
- The
Court finds, therefore, that in the circumstances of this particular
case the quashing of the final judgment via supervisory review did
not deprive the applicant of the “right to a court” under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. There has been accordingly no
violation of that Article.
2. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
- The
Court observes that as a result of the supervisory review the
applicant was awarded significantly less sums than under the initial
quashed judgment.
- However,
the interference with the applicant's
possession rights created by the quashed judgment was lawful and
pursued a legitimate aim of protecting the rights of the defendant
company, and, having regard to the findings under Article 6 of
the Convention, was proportionate.
- Accordingly,
there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 about the outcome of the
proceedings.
- Having
regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these
complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that there is
no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in
the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the
application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded,
pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of
the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the
supervisory review admissible and the remaining part of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been no violation of
Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on
account of supervisory review.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 March 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos
Rozakis
Registrar President
