DOLBIN v. RUSSIA - 18451/04 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Third Section Committee)) [2016] ECHR 362 (19 April 2016)

DOLBIN v. RUSSIA - 18451/04 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Third Section Committee)) [2016] ECHR 362 (19 April 2016)

The quashing of final and binding judgments in the applicant’s favour by way of supervisory review and on the basis of newly discovered circumstances violated the principle of legal certainty and the applicant’s rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The delayed enforcement of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ECHR 362
Parties
Applicant: Nikolay Ivanovich Dolbin; Respondent: Russian Federation
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
19 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights / Judgment by European Court of Human Rights (third Section), Committee
Outcome
Application partly allowed; violations found; just satisfaction awarded.
Legal Topics
Quashing of Judgments, Supervisory Review, Non Enforcement of Judgments, Delayed Enforcement, Legal Certainty, Right to a Fair Trial, Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions
Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Quashing of Judgments Supervisory Review Non Enforcement of Judgments Delayed Enforcement Legal Certainty Right to a Fair Trial +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nikolay Ivanovich Dolbin

Applicant

Russian Federation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights / Judgment by European Court of Human Rights (third Section), Committee

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the quashing of final and binding judgments in the applicant’s favour by way of supervisory review and on the basis of newly discovered circumstances violated Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
  2. 2 Whether the delayed enforcement of the judgment delivered in 2006 violated Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
  3. 3 Whether there was a lack of an effective domestic remedy against delayed enforcement in violation of Article 13

Ratio Decidendi

The quashing of final and binding judgments in the applicant’s favour by way of supervisory review and on the basis of newly discovered circumstances violated the principle of legal certainty and the applicant’s rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The delayed enforcement of the 2006 judgment also violated these provisions. The lack of an effective domestic remedy for delayed enforcement was not examined separately due to the introduction of a new remedy after the events in question.

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed; violations found; just satisfaction awarded.

Orders

  • Respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 5,000 within three months in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
  • From the expiry of three months until settlement, simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.