ORLOVSKAYA ISKRA v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 23 A. Admissibility 1. The parties’ submissions (a) The Government 58. The Government considered that the supervisory-review procedure under the CAO was not a remedy, for the following reasons: A trial judgment issued by a justice of the peace or a district court was amenable to ordinary appeal before a district court or a regional court, respectively. The relevant appeal decisions were not amenable to ordinary appeals and thus were to be treated as having “entered into force”. At the material time, the CAO did not contain a provision concerning timelimits for seeking supervisory review. As specified by the Plenary Supreme Court in 2003, the provisions on time-limits under the Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable in respect of administrative offence cases examined since 2002 under the CAO. Although parties to proceedings had a direct right to seek supervisory review before the regional court and/or Supreme Court, the CAO did not specify the scope of review and the grounds for such review. In addition, the CAO did not set any specific time-limits for challenging supervisory decisions issued at the regional level. While the Constitutional Court did require that supervisory review be limited to “correction of judicial errors”, and should not coincide with the scope of review by lower courts, the CAO itself did not clearly delimit the scope of powers held in this procedure by the (deputy) president of the court. 59. In view of the above, the Government concluded that the appeal decision issued by the district court should be treated as the “final” decision for the purpose of the six-month rule under Article 35 of the Convention. 60. The Government concluded that the application was belated. (b) The applicant organisation 61. The applicant organisation made no specific comment concerning the six-month issue. 2. The Court’s assessment 62. The Court observes that the applicant organisation lodged this application more than six months after the appeal decision dated 27 December 2007 or the date on which it was able to receive a copy thereof. However, each of the two decisions at supervisory-review level (dated 29 January and 19 June 2008) and the decision of the Constitutional Court (dated 25 December 2008) were taken and, a fortiori, received by the applicant within the six-month time-period. The question before the Court is