CASE OF PRISYAZHNIKOVA AND DOLGOPOLOV v. RUSSIA
Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial awards;Non-pecuniary damage - financial awards
Christos Rozakis
4. The applicants were born 1966 and 1934 respectively, and live in Neryungri in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic of the Russian Federation. 5. The applicants brought a civil action against the Government, seeking to enforce State promissory notes for purchase of a Russian-made car or to recover the monetary value thereof. 6. On 17 March 2003 the Ust-Yanskiy District Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic found for the applicants and awarded 112,441.80 Russian roubles (“RUR”) to the first applicant and RUR 107,327.82 to the second applicant against the Ministry of Finance. 7. On 23 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic (hereinafter – “the Supreme Court”) rejected an appeal by the Ministry of Finance and upheld the judgment. 8. The enforcement proceedings were opened on 15 May 2003, but the judgment was not enforced. 9. By interim decision of 11 August 2003, Judge R. of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic refused a request by the Ministry of Finance for obtaining the case file for the purpose of initiating supervisory-review proceedings. The Ministry had claimed that the courts had incorrectly applied the substantive law. 10. By letter of 20 October 2003, the Supreme Court's President rejected a renewed request by the Ministry of Finance for launching the supervisory-review proceedings. 11. On 9 June 2004 the Ministry of Finance introduced a new application for supervisory review of the judgments in the applicants' favour, founded on the same grounds as before. 12. On 30 September 2004 the Supreme Court's President issued an interim decision on remitting the applicants' cases for examination on the merits to the Supreme Court's Presidium by way of supervisory review. In the procedural part, the interim decision of 11 August 2003, but not the letter of 20 October 2003, was mentioned. 13. On 14 October 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, in a five-judge formation presided over by the Supreme Court's President, found that the lower courts had not taken into account certain provisions relating to reimbursement of State promissory notes. On that ground, relying on Articles 388 and 390 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Presidium quashed the judgments in the applicants' favour and dismissed their claim as having no basis in the domestic law. 14. A judicial decision becomes legally binding after the appeal court has examined the matter (Article 209 § 1). A judicial decision must be enforced once it became legally binding, unless the law provides for its immediate enforcement (Article 210). 15. The relevant provisions governing the supervisory-review proceedings read as follows: “1. Courts may issue judicial decisions in the form of judicial orders, judgments and interim decisions...” “1. Judicial decisions that have become legally binding, with the exception for judicial decisions by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, may be appealed against... to a court exercising supervisory review, by parties to the case and by other persons whose rights or legal interests have been adversely affected by these judicial decisions. 2. Judicial decisions may be appealed against to a court exercising supervisory review within one year after they became legally binding...” “An application for supervisory review must contain: (1) the name of the court to which it is addressed; ... (4) a reference to the first-instance, appeal or cassation courts that examined the case and a summary of their decisions; (5) a reference to the judgment or decision which is being appealed against...” “2. Having examined an application for supervisory review, the judge issues an interim decision on – (1) obtaining the case file if there exist doubts as to the lawfulness of the judicial decision; (2) refusing to obtain the case file if the arguments in the application for supervisory review may not, in accordance with the federal law, result in quashing of the judicial decision. ... 6. The President of the regional Supreme Court... may disagree with the judge's decision refusing to obtain the case file. In such case the President issues his own decision on obtaining the case file.” “2. Having examined the case file obtained by the supervisory-review court, the judge issues an interim decision on – – refusing to remit the case for examination on the merits by the supervisory-review court; – remitting the case for examination of the application for supervisory review on the merits by the supervisory-review court.” “2. The President of the regional Supreme Court... may disagree with the judge's decision refusing to remit the case for examination on the merits by the supervisory-review court. In such case the President issues his own decision on remitting the case for examination on the merits by the supervisory-review court.” “1. A judicial decision on remitting the case for examination on the merits by a supervisory-review court must contain: (7) a reasoned description of the grounds for remitting the case for examination on the merits...” “1. Having examined the case by way of supervisory review, the court may ... (5) quash or alter the judicial decision issued by a court of first, second or supervisory-review instance and issue a new judicial decision, without remitting the matter for a fresh examination, if substantive legal provisions have been erroneously applied or interpreted.” 16. Once instituted, enforcement proceedings must be completed within two months upon receipt of the writ of execution by the bailiff (Section 13).