Примеры использования Supervisory review procedure на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The State party argued that the supervisory review procedure was an effective domestic remedy.
On an unspecified date, the author unsuccessfully appealed the decision of the Supreme Court through the supervisory review procedure.
He adds that,for the above-mentioned reasons, the supervisory review procedure involving the Prosecutor's Office is equally ineffective.
It noted the State party's challenge to admissibility on the grounds that the case had not been examined by the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan under the supervisory review procedure.
The appeals under the supervisory review procedure can be filed only within a year after the court's decision is effective.
She adds that the Committee has not concluded in its jurisprudence that the supervisory review procedure constitutes an effective remedy.
She further notes that the supervisory review procedure is discretionary in nature and for that reason, cannot be considered as an effective remedy.
The rest of the State party's information is false,for example the statement that he submitted a complaint under the supervisory review procedure on 11 March 2005.
She considers the supervisory review procedure that is initiated by the Office of the Procurator-General to be ineffective, in line with the Committee's established jurisprudence.
On 21 December 2007, the author appealed the rulings of the Vitebsk District Court andthe Vitebsk Regional Court to the Supreme Court under the supervisory review procedure.
It submits that the Supreme Court received a complaint under the supervisory review procedure from the author, with the same arguments as those in the present communication.
The State party noted that Mr. Gapirjanov had not exhaustedall available domestic remedies, as his case had not been examined by the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan under the supervisory review procedure.
The author's further applications under supervisory review procedure were rejected by the Altai Territory Court on 27 November 2003, and by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 21 July 2004.
The author also notes that the State party has not demonstrated that a prosecutor's protest motion submitted within the supervisory review procedure is indeed an effective remedy.
She also submitted that the supervisory review procedure was consistently considered as violating the principle of legal certainty by the European Court of Human Rights(ECHR) and the Human Rights Committee.
In that connection, she notes that the State party is aware of many cases when a prosecutor's protest motion submitted within the supervisory review procedure has been rejected or dismissed by courts.
However, the Committee notes that the State party has not indicated whether the supervisory review procedure has been successfully applied in cases concerning freedom of expression or the right to peaceful assembly and, if it has, in how many cases.
On unspecified dates, the ruling of the Khoyniki District Court of the Gomel region of 18 November 2004 was appealed by the author to the Gomel Regional Court andthe Supreme Court under the supervisory review procedure.
The Zhalalabad Regional Court decision was challenged pursuant to the Supervisory Review Procedure before the Supreme Court. On 27 December 2006, the Supreme Court reversed the second instance court decision and upheld the first instance court judgment, which became final.
On 2 May 2008, the State party reiterates the facts summarized in paragraph 2.4 above andadds that the author did not appeal the ruling of the Supreme Court of 22 December 2006 under the supervisory review procedure.
In this regard,he notes that the Committee has previously concluded that the supervisory review procedure constituted an extraordinary means of appeal and was not a remedy, which had to be exhausted for purposes of article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol.
In particular, the rulings of the Pskov Regional Court of 24 December 2008(see paragraph 2.15 above) and 25 February 2009(see paragraph 2.17 above)have not been examined under the supervisory review procedure.
On 6 February 2003, the Head of the Department for Petitions andCitizens' Reception of the Supreme Court dismissed the author's repeated complaint under the supervisory review procedure, addressed to the Chairperson of the Supreme Court, about the ruling of the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Gomel of 23 July 2002.
On 15 February 2007, the State party explained that the author's lawsuit was rejected by the Zaingiraev District Court of the Republic of Buryatia on 22 December 1995.On 12 July 2005, the same court also denied his request for renewal of the deadline for his appeal under the supervisory review procedure.
In this regard, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which the supervisory review procedure against court decisions which have entered into force constitutes an extraordinary means of appeal which is dependent on the discretionary power of a judge or prosecutor and is limited to issues of law only.
The Committee notes the State party's argument that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies,as the author's appeal of 11 March 2005 under the supervisory review procedure was under consideration by the Supreme Court.
In this regard, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which the supervisory review procedure against court decisions which have entered into force constitutes an extraordinary means of appeal which is dependent on the discretionary power of a judge or prosecutor and is limited to issues of law only.
The petitioner's reference to the jurisprudence of ECHR(see paragraph 5.1 above) was erroneous,since all the judgments cited by her concerned the issue of the supervisory review procedure in civil proceedings and, therefore, were inapplicable in her case.
On 1 October 2009, the author submitted a complaint under the supervisory review procedure to the Vitebsk Regional Court, but it was rejected on 11 December 2009. On 12 January 2010, he submitted another complaint under the supervisory review procedure to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus; but again in vain.
The Committee also notes the State party's claim that the author could have lodged an appeal against the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court,which already became executory, under the supervisory review procedure envisaged by article 30.12, part 1, of the Code on Administrative Offences.