Communicated on 28 September 2018
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 38203/16
Dmitriy Viktorovich STUPKO
against Russia
lodged on 25 June 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Viktorovich Stupko, is a Russian national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Parkovyy. He is represented before the Court by Mr M.Y. Izhikov, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 11 October 2002 Tikhoretsksnab OJSC (ОАО “Тихорецкснаб”) sold a railway track to the applicant.
On 29 October 2002 the applicant registered his rights on the railway track. However the applicant was not able to register his right on the plot of land since it was not on the list of the cadaster’s registry. According to the applicant Tikhoretsksnab OJSC should have registered its rights on the plot of land and then transfer the rights to the applicant based on the contract of 11 October 2002.
On 7 May 2007 Khlebnaya Baza Tikhoretsksnab LLC (ООО “Хлебная База Тихорецкснаб”), the successor company of Tikhoretsksnab OJSC, registered its right on the plot of land. Due to the bankruptcy of Khlebnaya Baza Tikhoretsksnab LLC the rights on the plot of land was not transferred to the applicant.
On 15 March 2012 the liquidator of Khlebnaya Baza Tikhoretsksnab LLC sold the plot of land to Chernomortransneft OJSC (ОАО “Черномортранснефть”), a subsidiary of Transneft CJSC, a leading state-owned oil pipeline company. It appears that the later registered its right on the plot of land.
1. First set of proceedings
On different dates the applicant lodged several applications with the Tikhoretsk District Court of Krasnodar region.
On 26 April 2013 all the applications were joined. The applicant requested to declare the contract of purchase of 15 March 2012 null and void, to annul the registration of Chernomortransneft OJSC’s rights and declare his right on the plot of land.
On 30 August 2013 the Tikhoretsk District Court granted the applicant’s claims. The court found that the applicant obtained right on the plot of land under the contract of 11 October 2002. Under the aforementioned contract Khlebnaya Baza Tikhoretsksnab LLC had obligation to transfer all the property rights to the applicant which it failed to do.
On an unspecified date Chernomortransneft OJSC and the liquidator appealed against the judgment.
On 14 November 2013 the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the judgment of the inferior court and terminated the proceedings on the grounds that the dispute fell within the jurisdiction of commercial courts.
On 17 February 2014 a single judge of the Krasnodar Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request to transfer his cassation appeal for consideration on the merits. The applicant lodged an application with the Supreme Court of Russia.
On 26 August 2014 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgment of 14 November 2013 and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the Krasnodar Regional Court.
On 7 October 2014 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the judgment of 30 August 2013.
2. Second set of proceedings
On 20 January 2015 Chernomortransneft OJSC lodged a cassation appeal with the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court against the judgments of 30 August 2013 and 7 October 2014.
On 10 June 2015 the Presidium rejected the aforementioned cassation appeal and upheld the judgments of the inferior courts.
On 31 August 2015 Chernomortransneft OJSC lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court of Russia against the judgments of 30 August 2013, 7 October 2014 and 10 June 2015.
On 9 September 2015 a single judge of the Supreme Court of Russia refused to transfer the appeal for consideration on the merits.
On 2 October 2015 Chernomortransneft OJSC applied to the President of the Supreme Court under Article 381 § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting to quash the decision of the single judge of 9 September 2015.
By the letter of 23 October 2015 the Deputy President of Supreme Court notified Chernomortransneft OJSC that there were no grounds for quashing the decision of the single judge of 9 September 2015.
On 30 November 2015 Chernomortransneft OJSC lodged a supervisory‑review application with the President of the Supreme Court under Article 391.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting to quash the judgments of 30 August 2013, 7 October 2014 and 10 June 2015. The arguments put forwarded in the appeal were identical to that of the cassation appeal lodged on 31 August 2015.
On 8 December 2015 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court requested the case file from the Krasnodar Regional Court to check the admissibility of the supervisory-review application.
On 25 December 2015 the applicant registered his right on the disputable plot of land.
On 30 December 2015 Chernomortransneft OJSC applied to the Supreme Court asking to consider his appeal lodged on 30 November 2015 as a cassation appeal.
On 2 February 2016 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 9 September 2015 and transferred the cassation appeal for consideration on the merits. In doing so, the Deputy President found that the contract of 11 October 2002 had not had any specific provisions on the rights in respect of the plot of land.
On 16 February 2016 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgment of the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court of 10 June 2015 and the judgment of the appeal court of 7 October 2014. The case was remitted to the court of appeals for fresh consideration. In its judgment the Supreme Court referred to the wrong application of the material law and assessment of evidence.
On 12 May 2016 the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the judgment of Tikhoretsk District Court of 30 August 2013 and dismissed the applicant’s claims.
The applicant unsuccessfully lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment of 12 May 2016 with the regional court and subsequently with the Supreme Court of Russia.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice governing the new cassation procedure as in force since 1 January 2012 is summed up in the Court’s decision in the case of Abramyan and Others v. Russia ((dec.) (nos. 38951/13 and 59611/13, §§ 28-56, 12 May 2015).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 of the Convention about the quashing on 12 May 2016 of the final judgment of 30 August 2013 delivered in his favour by the Tikhoretsk District Court, as a result of the use by the defendant company of an extraordinary remedy, that is an application to the Deputy President of the Supreme Court.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the quashing on 12 May 2016 of the final judgment in the applicant’s favour violated the principle of legal certainty enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Did the quashing of the final judgment in the applicant’s favour under the aforementioned grounds also infringe his right enshrined in Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy