1 Special Ordinance No. 5, entered on the 10^th of October 2003.Google Scholar

2 Section 10, paragraph 3 of the Ordinance.Google Scholar

3 Section 11, of the Ordinance.Google Scholar

4 Section 4 (b) of Ordinance No. 19.Google Scholar

5 It reads: “The High Contraction Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature”.Google Scholar

6 See the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 21^st December 2005 No 13-Π, which states that “On the case of examination of constitutionality of some provisions of the Federal Law” On General Principles of Organization of Legislative (Representative) and Executive Bodies of State Powers of Subjects of the Russian Federation in connection with complaints of a number of citizens”, Section 2, paragraph 8).Google Scholar

7 See the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 20^th February 2006 No1-Π, stating that “On the case of examination of constitutionality of provisions of Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection with complaints of citizens K.A. Ineshin, N.S. Nikonov and open joint stock company “Nizhnekamsknefltehim”, Section 2, paragraph 8).Google Scholar

8 See Section 2.1, paragraph 2 of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 5^th March 2007 No2-Π in the case on examination of constitutionality of provisions of Articles 16, 20, 112, 336, 376, 377, 380, 381, 382, 383, 387, 388 and 389 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection with application of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Tatarstan Republic, complaints of open joint stock companies “Nizhnekamskneftehim” and “Khakasenergo” as well as complaints of number of citizens.”Google Scholar

9 It reads, inter alia, that the Committee of Ministers,Google Scholar

“Considering the importance of the European Convention of Human Rights … as a constitutional instrument for safeguarding public order in Europe, and in particular of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights…;Google Scholar

Considering that easy access to the Court case-law is essential for the effective implementation of the Convention at national level, as it enables to ensure the conformity of national decisions with this case-law and to prevent violations;Google Scholar

Recommends that the governments of the member States review their practice as regards the publication and dissemination of:Google Scholar

- the text of the Convention in the language(s) of the country;Google Scholar

- the Court judgments and decisions, in the light of the following considerations.Google Scholar

It is important that the governments of member states:Google Scholar

i. ensure that the text of the Convention, in the language(s) of the Country, is published and disseminated in such a manner that it can be effectively known and that the national authorities, notably the courts, can apply it;Google Scholar

ii. ensure that judgments and decisions which constitute relevant case-law developments, or which require special implementation measures on their part as respondent States are rapidly and widely published, through state or private initiative, in their entirety or at least in the from of substantial summaries or excerpts (together with appropriate references to the original texts) in the language(s) of the country, in particular in official gazettes, information bulletins from competent ministries, law journals and other media generally used by the legal community, including, where appropriate, the Internet sites…”Google Scholar

10 See, for example, Michele de Salvia. European Convention on Human Rights. St. Petersburg. 2004; Michele de Salvia. Precedents of the European Court of Human Rights.Google Scholar

11 It reads:Google Scholar

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.Google Scholar

2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State”.Google Scholar

12 Its Section 1 reads:Google Scholar

“1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice”.Google Scholar

13 See, Konstantin Antonov v. the Russian Federation, the judgment of 3^rd November 2005.Google Scholar

14 This Article reads: “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.Google Scholar

The previous provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties”.Google Scholar

15 Kayihan and others v. Turkey, judgment of 8^th April 2004.Google Scholar

16 European Commission for Democracy though Law (Venice Commission). Study on the effectiveness of national remedies in respect of excessive length of proceedings. Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 69^th Plenary Section (Venice, 15–16 December 2006), Section 173.Google Scholar

17 Ibid, Section 178.Google Scholar

18 Ibid., Section 179.Google Scholar

19 See, Michele de Salvia. Precedents of the European Court of Human Rights. Leading principles of judicial practice relevant to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, p. 967.Google Scholar

20 Judgment of 9^th January 2007.Google Scholar

21 See, Section 31, paragraph 1 of the judgment.Google Scholar

22 See, Section 32 of the judgment.Google Scholar

23 See, Section 11, paragraph 2.Google Scholar

24 This Article reads:Google Scholar

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.Google Scholar

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights or freedoms of others”.Google Scholar

25 According to this norm a State Arbitration Court's judgment may be reviewed upon newly-discovered circumstances on a number of reasons, one of which is a violation of provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in course of consideration of a concrete case by a State Arbitration Court in connection of the judgment of which the applicant approached the European Court of Human Rights, if the abovementioned violation has been established by the European Court.Google Scholar

26 See, Article 1, Section 4.Google Scholar

27 See, Article 394 of the Civil Procedure Code.Google Scholar

28 See, Article 415, Section 5.Google Scholar

29 See, e.g., the judgment in the case “Bromaresku v. Romania”, (28^th October 1999).Google Scholar

30 See, e.g., the judgment in the case “Ryabykh v. Russia, (24^th July 2003).Google Scholar

31 See, e.g., the judgments in the cases “Tumilovich v. Russia” (22^nd June 1999), “Sovtransavto v. Ukraine” (25^th July 2002), “Nikitin v. Russia” (20^th July 2004).Google Scholar

32 See: the judgment in the case “Naumenko v. Ukraine” (9^th November 2004).Google Scholar

33 See, Article 293, Section 4.Google Scholar

34 See, Article 299, Section 9)Google Scholar

35 See, Article 377.Google Scholar

36 Section 3, 2, paragraph 1.Google Scholar

37 Section 3.1, paragraph 2.Google Scholar

38 Section 9.1, paragraph 3.Google Scholar

39 Section 9.1, paragraph 7.Google Scholar