CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 janvier 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 24 January 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no 45580/15 Olesya Nikolayevna TREGUET against Russia lodged on 9 September 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS   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). COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the quashing of the final judgment by the cassation court and that the Deputy President’s discretional power to transfer the case for consideration on the merits infringes the principle of legal certainty.   QUESTION Did the quashing, by way of cassation review, of the final judgment in the applicant’s favour breach the requirement of legal certainty enshrined in the right to a court under Article   6 of the Convention?