perty. But his right to access to justice becomes illusory when on the ground of the Civil procedural Code the General Prosecutor and the Supreme Court of Justice interfere and cancel the decision of court of the first instance and favorable consequences of the given decision for the applicant. When the legal system gives courts the right to make final decisions, and then supposes, that the given decisions should be subsequently cancelled, does not only legal definiteness suffer, but existence of such court is put under doubt for, in effect, it does not possess powers to resolve finally legal questions. And it is rather doubtful, that, the person applying in such court for the resolution of the dispute can really realize his right to judicial protection and to access to justice. further decisions on similar cases the European Court has invariable emphasized, that the right to access to justice would be illusory if the national legal system of the state-participant of the Convention supposed that the final and obligatory judgement remained not working to the detriment of one of the sides. It would be impossible, if item 1 Article 6 of the Convention in detail describing the remedial guarantees given to the sides, - fair, public and fast trial - would leave without protection execution of judgement; interpretation of Article 6 as concerning exclusively access to justice and proceeding, probably, would lead to the situations incompatible with the principle of supremacy of the law which the countries - participants have undertaken to respect at ratification of the Convention [7]. right of the side to justice in the equal measure would be illusory if the legal system of the state-participant of the Convention supposed that the judgement which has become final and obligatory, was cancelled by the higher court on the protest of the state official whose powers to appeal with the given requirements are not limited by any term therefore judgements can be disputed during the uncertain time [8]. The European Court believes, that the judicial system to which the procedure of bringing the protests is inherent and, hence, the opportunity of numerous cancellation of final judgements is incompatible with a principle of legal definiteness [9]. European Court has repeatedly recognized that revision of judgements which have entered validity, in the order of supervision, stipulated by the Russian Civil Procedural legislation, violates the principle of legal definiteness and the right to access to justice [10]. And even in cases when as a result of the new proceeding the requirements of applicants have been in full or partly satisfied, the European Court has specified, that the fact of cancellation of the judgement entered into validity compelled them to undergo the situation of legal uncertainty , and has ascertained infringement of item 1 Article 6 of the Convention [11]. these decisions of the European Court concerned the supervising proceeding stipulated earlier by the working Civil Procedural Code of RSFSR according to which regulations the protests in the order of supervision could be brought by the certain officials of the bodies of the Prosecutor s Office and the courts , not participating in the case, and during unlimited time after coming of the decision into force. In the new Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation from November 14, 2002 (with the subsequent changes and additions) the order of revision of judicial resolutions in the order of supervision has been radically changed. However, there are certain doubts concerning compatibility of supervising proceeding with the principle of legal definiteness. problems were discussed at the seminar Revision of judgements in the order of supervision in the Russian Federation: prospects of reform according to the requirements of the European Court on human rights raquo ;, held on 21, 22 February, 2005 in Strasbourg by the Russian authorities together with institutes of the Council of Europe. The participants of the seminar - from the Russian side they were chairmen and judges of higher courts, representatives of the Prosecutor s Office, Administration of the President, lawyers - have recognized the necessity of the further reforming of supervising proceeding in Russia [12 ]. of the required transformations have been designated in the preliminary Resolution of the Committee of the Ministers of the Council of Europe from February 8, 2 006, adopted during the control over the performance by the Russian Federation of decisions of the European Court on cases of Ryabykh and Volkov against Russia [13]. The committee of Ministers has reminded, that the obligation according to item 1 Article 46 of the Convention to execute decisions of the European Court includes taking measures of general character directed to prevention of new infringements of the Convention, similar themes established by Court. And concerning cases similar to the considered su...
