ORLOVSKAYA ISKRA v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 25 discretionary power of the presidents of the regional courts to overrule decisions by their judges dismissing such applications. In particular, the Court criticised the maintaining of several consecutive judicial instances of supervisory review at both regional and federal level, the existence of an overall six-month time-limit open to differing interpretations, and not least the powers of the President or Deputy President of the Supreme Court to reverse any decision by a judge of the same court dismissing a supervisory review application (see Martynets, cited above). 67. The Court has recently taken a different view concerning the cassation appeal procedure in force since January 2012 under the Code of Civil Procedure (see Abramyan and Others (dec.), nos. 38951/13 and 59611/13, 12 May 2015). 68. As to criminal proceedings, in Berdzenishvili, cited above, the Court considered that an application for supervisory review under the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure was not a remedy under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The Court noted the absence of any time-limit for seeking and carrying out such a review. Furthermore, if the Presidium of a Regional Court dismissed a supervisory-review complaint it could be re-submitted to the Supreme Court. Where a judge refused to transfer a supervisory-review complaint to a supervisory-review court, the president of the court could intervene and overrule the judge’s decision. Exercise of these rights was also not subject to a time-limit. The Court subsequently confirmed this approach (see, among others, Krasulya v. Russia, no. 12365/03, § 29, 22 February 2007). 69. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the proceedings at issue concerned administrative offences and were governed, as regards both substance and procedure, by the provisions of the CAO, as in force before legislative amendments in 2008. 70. The Court also notes that the applicant organisation lodged supervisory-review complaints first before the Regional Court and then before the Supreme Court of Russia. Both complaints were examined on the merits and rejected. 71. First, the Court notes that under the CAO a prosecutor had the competence to institute administrative offence proceedings for a number of offences, but also had the right to institute administrative offence proceedings in any other case. He could participate in the examination of the case, could make representations, and could give a report on various issues arising in the case. He could also appeal against the decision in the case, irrespective of whether he had previously participated in the proceedings. The CAO gave a regional prosecutor or his or her deputy, the Prosecutor General or his or her deputy the right to seek supervisory review of the decision on the administrative offence. 72. In the circumstances of the present case, the proceedings were instituted by the Electoral Committee. The applicant organisation was the