onfirmed in the decision on the case Nelubin against Russia. In the given case the Court has recognized infringement of the principle of legal definiteness in connection with cancellation in the order of supervision of the judgement on the ground of the complaint submitted later three months after its coming into force. The fact, that the supervising complaint has been submitted during a rather short term after introduction of the decision into validity (to which the state - respondent referred), the European Court considered not having crucial importance. The court brought focus to the circumstance, that the respondent did not apply common means of appeal, having missed the established for it 10-day term and the government has not specified any exclusive circumstances which would interfere with it [21]. the case Prisyazhnikova and Dolgopolov against Russia, the European Court considered the complaint on cancellation of the judgement made in favour of applicants, as a result of supervising proceeding excited after expiry of more than 13 months after its coming into force. And in the given case the question was on the decision which has become legally obligatory after introduction in action of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation according to which regulation of Part 2 Article 376 of the Civil Procedural Code was distributed to it according to which judgements can be appealed in court of supervising instance within a year from the date of their introduction into validity. But as the term judgement [22] covers both decisions of courts on essence of the case, and intermediate decisions [23] (Part 1 Article 13 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation) every time after decision-making (definition) about refusal in excitation of supervising proceeding, in the given case the Definition from August 11, 2 003, the period of one-year term of application in court of supervising instance renews. Uncertainty of the term for initiation of supervising proceeding has allowed the respondent - the Ministry of Finance - to submit consistently three complaints to court of supervising instance, the last of which has been submitted 14 months later after the decision in favour of the applicants became obligatory and subjected to execution [24]. European Court has noted that supervising complaints of the Ministry of Finance were actually grounded on the similar arguments. The first complaint has been rejected by the judge of the Supreme Court of Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), the second - has been rejected by the Presidium of the same court, and the third - has been satisfied by the Chairman of the given court. According to Article 381 (Part 6) and 383 (Part 2) of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the chairman of the regional court [25] has the right not to agree with the definition of the judge of the given court about refusal in excitation of supervising proceeding [26]. Thus the given power of the chairman of the court is not limited by any term [27]. European Court has emphasized, that, according to the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the power of the chairman of the court to cancel decisions of other judges is not limited. The chairman of court has unlimited discretionary powers concerning excitation of supervising proceeding; and simple disagreement with the decision of the judge is the sufficient ground for it (Part 6 Article 381, Part 2 Article 383 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation). For realization by the chairman of the court of his discretionary powers it is not necessary to have applications of the persons participating in the case, and he can excite supervising proceeding at any time [28]. European Court has recognized infringement of the right of the applicant to access to justice in many cases when the judgement being final and obligatory, has been cancelled on the ground of application of the state official, whose powers to appeal with the given requirement have not been limited by the certain term. In the given case the state - respondent has not presented any reasons which would allow the European Court to come to another decision. In this connection the European Court has recognized, that cancellation of the judgement in the order of supervising proceeding excited by the Chairman of the Supreme Court of Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) violates the principle of legal definiteness and the right of the applicants to access to justice and has established infringement of item 1 Article 6 of the Convention [29]. is necessary to note, that, according to practice of the European Court, cancellation in the order of supervision of the judgement obligatory and subjected to execution recognizing liabilities in favour of the applicant according to which he can lawfully expect raquo ;, that they will be executed, makes not only infringement of the principle of legal definiteness and of the right to access to ju...
