[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF KOROVINA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 24178/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25
February 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 Korovina v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nina Vajić,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
George Nicolaou,
judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 4 February 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 24178/05) 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, Ms Antonina Sergeyevna
Korovina (“the applicant”), on 27 May 2005.
- 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
25 January 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 1930 and lives in Syzran, Samara Region.
- On 14 June 1994 the applicant opened a deposit account
with a bank at 190% per annum for ten years on behalf of her
granddaughter, a minor at the material time (she was born in 1986).
- Subsequently the bank decreased
the interest rate down to 16% and the
applicant brought proceedings against it claiming the decrease
unlawful.
- On 21 April 2003 the Syzran Town Court of the Samara
Region granted the applicant’s claim in part, ordering
the bank to make payments on the basis of the interest rate of 85%
per annum.
- On 2 June 2003 the Samara Regional Court amended
the judgment on appeal and granted the applicant’s claims in
full, ordering the bank to maintain the
interest rate in accordance with the initial conditions of the
deposit, namely 190% per annum. The appeal judgment became final on
the same date.
- After the deposit period expired
on 18 June 2004, the appeal judgment was enforced and the applicant’s
granddaughter received the required sums.
- However, on the bank’s initiative, on 20 January
2005 the Presidium of the Samara Regional Court quashed the previous
judgments via supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh
consideration, on the grounds that the lower courts had made errors
in applying the domestic law.
11. On
7 February 2005 the town court dismissed the applicant’s claim.
12. On 14
March 2005 the Samara Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
- On an unspecified date the bank was awarded back the
sums paid to the applicant’s granddaughter.
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 Sobelin and Others v. Russia
(nos. 30672/03, et seq.,
§§ 33-42, 3 May 2007).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 ON ACCOUNT OF
SUPERVISORY REVIEW
- The
applicant complained in substance under Article 6 of the Convention
that the final judgment of 21 April 2003, as amended by the appeal
judgment of 2 June 2003, had been quashed by way of supervisory
review. In so far as relevant, this Article reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ...
by [a] ... tribunal...”
- 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.
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
- The
Court reiterates that for the sake of legal certainty implicitly
required by Article 6, final judgments should generally be left
intact. They may be disturbed only to correct fundamental errors. The
mere possibility of there being two views on the subject is not a
ground for re examination (see Ryabykh
v. Russia,
no. 52854/99, §§ 51-52,
ECHR 2003 IX).
- The Court reiterates that it has
frequently found violations of the principle of legal certainty and
of the right to a court in the supervisory review proceedings
governed by the Code of Civil Procedure in force since 2003 (see,
amongst other authorities, Sobelin
and Others, cited above, §§ 57-58,
and Bodrov v. Russia,
no. 17472/04, § 31, 12 February 2009).
- In the present case the
Presidium disagreed with the assessment made by the first-instance
and appeal courts which is not, in itself, an exceptional
circumstance warranting the quashing of a binding and enforceable
judgment (see Kot
v. Russia, no. 20887/03, § 29,
18 January 2007). Accordingly, there has been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant further complained in substance under Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 about the same quashing via supervisory review. She also
complained under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 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.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
- The
applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly,
the Court makes no award under Article 41 of
the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint under Article 6
concerning supervisory review admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention on account of the quashing of the final judgment
of 21 April 2003, as amended by the appeal judgment of 2 June
2003, via supervisory review.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 February 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Nina
Vajić
Registrar President
