FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 28730/03
by Lyudmila Gennadyevna LENSKAYA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 8 March 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens,
MrG. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 May 2003,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Lyudmila Gennadyevna Lenskaya, is a Russian national who was born in 1955 and lives in the town of Tomsk in the Tomsk Region. She was represented before the Court by Mrs T. Vyalova, a lawyer practising in Tomsk. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 2000 the applicant successfully asked the prosecution authorities to institute criminal proceedings against her former husband. She complained that on 24 November 2000 her former husband had assaulted her.
On 15 July 2002 the Kirovskiy District Court of Tomsk found the former husband guilty of assault and sentenced him to six months of correctional labor. The sentence was suspended on probation. The District Court also partly accepted the applicant’s tort action against her former husband and awarded her 4,782.68 Russian roubles (RUR) in compensation for pecuniary damage and RUR 10,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
On 12 September 2002 the Tomsk Regional Court, acting on appeal, reduced the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage to RUR 3,000 and upheld the remainder of the judgment.
In October 2002 the President of the Tomsk Regional Court lodged an application for a supervisory review of the judgment of 15 July 2002, as amended on 12 September 2002. On 10 November 2002 the applicant lodged with the Presidium her written arguments in reply.
On 11 December 2002 the Presidium of the Tomsk Regional Court, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgments of 15 July and 12 September 2002 and acquitted the former husband. The compensation claims were accordingly dismissed. The Presidium held, inter alia, that the District and Regional courts had not established what had constituted the criminal conduct under the particular head of the criminal charge, whether it had, in fact, taken place and whether it had been committed by the former husband. The District and Regional courts, without proper assessment of evidence, presumed that the applicant’s injuries had been caused by her former husband. Thus, the former husband’s guilt was not proven and the principle of presumption of innocence was violated.
The applicant and her representative attended the supervisory-review hearing and submitted their arguments. On 10 January 2003 the applicant was served with a copy of the judgment of 11 December 2002.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Articles 5 § 1, 6 § 1, 8 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the final judgment of 15 July 2002, as amended on 12 September 2002, had been quashed by way of supervisory-review proceedings.
2. The applicant further complained under the same Convention provisions that her former husband had not been held criminally liable, that the judges of the Presidium of the Tomsk Regional Court had been partial, that the Presidium had incorrectly assessed the facts of her case and misinterpreted the domestic law.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained under Articles 5 § 1, 6 § 1, 8 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the act of quashing of the final judgment of 15 July 2002, as amended on 12 September 2002, had violated her “right to a court” and her right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of these provisions 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 argued that the Presidium of the Tomsk Regional Court had quashed the judgments of 15 July and 12 September 2002 in order to correct the judicial error committed by the District and Regional courts. The guilt of the applicant’s former husband in having assaulted the applicant had not been proven.
The applicant averred that the quashing of the final judgment in her case had irremediably impaired the principle of legal certainty and had deprived her of the right to receive compensation for damage caused by her former husband.
In the light of the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that this complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The Court concludes that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established.
2. Lastly, the applicant complained under Articles 5, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention that her former husband had not been held criminally liable, that the judges of the Presidium of the Tomsk Regional Court had been partial, and that the Presidium had incorrectly assessed the facts of her case and misinterpreted the domestic law.
Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence ratione materiae, the Court finds that they do not disclose any 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
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention;
Declares admissible, without prejudging the merits, the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the quashing, by way of supervisory review, of the final judgment of 15 July 2002, as amended on 12 September 2002;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy