Information Note on the Court’s case-law 55

July 2003

Ryabykh v. Russia - 52854/99

Judgment 24.7.2003 [Section I]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Access to court

Supervisory review – annulment of final and binding judgment: violation

Facts : In 1997 the District Court made an award to the applicant in respect of the State’s failure to revalue her savings in order to offset the effects of inflation, as she claimed it was required to do by 1995 legislation. After the judgment had been set aside on appeal, the District Court delivered a similar judgment, awarding the applicant almost 134,000 roubles. This judgment became final in June 1998. However, in 1999 th e Regional Court, on an application for supervisory review lodged by its President, set aside the judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claims. In 2001 the Supreme Court granted an application for supervisory review of the Regional Court’s judgment and re mitted the case to the District Court, which again found in the applicant’s favour. The Regional Court having set that judgment aside, the District Court gave a further judgment in the applicant’s favour. The Regional Court also set that judgment aside and remitted the case to the District Court which, in a different composition, dismissed the applicant’s claims. The Regional Court upheld this judgment. However, the Regional Court’s judgment was quashed following an application for supervisory review by its President. The District Court then granted the applicant’s claim in part and the Regional Court upheld this judgment. The applicant subsequently reached a settlement with the authorities and the Government purchased a flat for her at a price of 330,000 ro ubles.

Law : Article 6 § 1 – Although it appeared that the State had made efforts to remedy the applicant’s situation (the judgment granting her claim and the purchase of a flat), it was not the failure to revalue her savings which was at the heart of her c omplaint under Article 6, which concerned rather the effect of the supervisory review procedure. The fact that the applicant’s claims were ultimately granted did not by itself remove the effects of the legal uncertainty which she had had to endure for thre e years after the original judgment in her favour had been quashed. She could therefore continue to claim to be a victim in that respect. The supervisory review procedure resulted in the entire judicial process which had culminated in a legal binding decis ion being set at naught. The procedure was set in motion by the President of the Regional Court, who was not a party to the proceedings, and there was no time-limit on the exercise of his power. The right to a court was illusory if a final binding and bind ing judicial decision could be quashed on an application by a State official and in the present case the Regional Court, by using the supervisory review procedure, had infringed the principle of legal certainty and the applicant’s right to a court. In thos e circumstances, it was unnecessary to examine whether the procedural guarantees of Article 6 had been respected in the supervisory review proceedings.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 6 § 1 – In the circumstances, it was unnecessary to examine whether the procedural guarantees of Article 6 had been respected in the supervisory review proceedings.

Conclusion : not necessary to examine (unanimously).

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Under the settlement which was reached, the State had provided the applicant with a flat which was worth significantly more than the amount which she had initially been granted. Moreover, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not r equire the State to maintain the purchasing power of investments and the 1995 legislation, as interpreted by the domestic courts, did not establish an enforceable obligation for the State to compensate for losses caused by inflation.

Conclusion : no violati on (unanimously).

Article 41 – The applicant had not made any claims within the specified time limits.

© 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