The entrenched rights of a litigant would be illusory if a judicial decision by an independent body which had become final and binding could thereafter be quashed by a higher court on the application of a state official. A departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character.
Held: The supervisory review procedure within Russia was incompatible with Article 6-1.
Citations:
52854/99, [2003] ECHR 396, (2005) 40 EHRR 25
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights6-1
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Joint Stock Company (Aeroflot-Russian Airlines) v Berezovsky and Another CA 16-Jan-2014
The appellant had judgments obtained in Russia against the respondent. It now appealed against a refusal of enforcement of those judgments based upon the ground that there was a complete defence to the recognition and enforcement of the judgments . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Litigation Practice
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.185133
