I incorrectly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in TREGUET v. RUSSIA.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2022-09-20
  • Communication date: 2017-01-24
  • Application number(s): 45580/15
  • Country:   RUS
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 6, 6-1
  • Conclusion:
    No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings
    Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)
  • Result: No violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.800767
  • Prediction: Violation

  • Inconsistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

Application no 45580/15Olesya Nikolayevna TREGUETagainst Russialodged on 9 September 2015 The applicant is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Moscow.
A.
The circumstances of the cases The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 November 2007 the applicant concluded a preliminary contract with a construction company to purchase a flat upon its construction.
Although the applicant paid for the flat, the construction company refused to conclude the main purchase agreement and to transfer to the applicant the possession of the flat.
The applicant unsuccessfully initiated proceedings to obtain the possession of the property.
Subsequently he instituted another set of proceedings seeking to oblige the construction company to conclude the main purchase agreement.
On an unspecified date Ms E.N.
Oskina intervened in the proceedings as a third party claiming that she was the owner of the flat.
On 2 October 2013 the Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claim.
On 24 March 2014 the Moscow City Court granted the applicant’s appeal and obliged the company to conclude with him the main purchase agreement.
The judgment was not appealed against and became final.
On 10 June 2014 enforcement proceedings were instituted.
On an unspecified date Ms E.N.
Oskina lodged a cassation appeal with the Moscow City Court against the judgment of 24 March 2014.
Subsequently she filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court of Russia.
On 4 August 2014 the single judge of the Supreme Court of Russia rejected to transfer Ms E.N.
Oskina’s cassation appeal for consideration on the merits.
On 6 November 2014 Ms E.N.
Oskina complained about the dismissal of its cassation appeal to the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Russia.
On 26 January 2015 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Russia disagreed with the decision of 4 August 2014 adopted by a single judge of the same court and transferred Ms E.N.
Oskina’s appeal for consideration on the merits.
On 10 March 2015 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgment of 24 March 2014 and endorsed the first instance court’s judgment of 2 October 2013.
On 5 June 2015 the applicant lodged a supervisory review application.
On 9 July 2015 his application was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Russia.
B.
Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice governing the cassation review of judicial decisions after they become final in force as of 1 January 2012 is summed up in the Court’s decision in the case of Abramyan and Others v. Russia (nos.
38951/13 and 59611/13, §§ 32-41 and 49‐53, 12 May 2015).

Judgment