Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 04.11.2010 «Дело Пугач и другие (Pugach and others) против России» [англ.]

ceived RUB 104,405.82 each. On 1 October 2007 Mr Pavlenko received RUB 67,616.22 due to him under the judgment of 4 June 2007.
9. On 10 October 2007 the Ministry of Finance applied to the Stavropol Regional Court requesting to institute supervisory-review proceedings in respect of the judgments in the applicants' favour.
10. On 29 November 2007 the Presidium of the Stavropol Regional Court, by two separate judgments, quashed the awards of 4 June 2007 and remitted the cases for a fresh examination. The Presidium found that the lower court had erred in applying the provisions of the Law No. 1244-1 "On Social Protection of Citizens Exposed to Radiation as a Result of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station Explosion" ("the Chernobyl Law") and, as a result, incorrectly determined the defendant authority in the case. The Presidium had not specified a due defendant.
11. In December 2007 the State Treasury discontinued the monthly payments in respect of food allowance due to the applicants under the quashed judgments. Instead, the authorities started to pay the applicants monthly disability benefits in accordance with the relevant legislation.
12. On 15 February 2008 the Town Court discontinued the proceedings in all cases except for that of Mr Pavlenko, due to the applicants' failure to appear before the first instance court. On 19 February 2008 the proceedings in Mr Pavlenko's case were discontinued by the Town Court on the same ground.
13. In February 2009 the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation brought proceedings against all applicants claiming repayment of the lump sums they had received pursuant to the quashed judgments. On 4 March 2009 the Town Court rejected the claim. It appears that the judgment was not appealed against and became final.

II. Relevant domestic law

14. The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure at the material time is summed up in the Court's judgment in the case of Kot v. Russia (No. 20887/03, § 17, 18 January 2007).

THE LAW

I. Joinder of the applications

15. Given that these applications concern similar facts and complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to consider them in a single judgment.

II. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

16. The applicants in all cases complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the final judgments of 4 June 2007 had been quashed by way of supervisory review on 29 November 2007. In so far as relevant, this Article read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."

A. Admissibility

17. The Government argued that the applications were inadmissible as the applicants had lost interest in maintaining their cases in the domestic proceedings which followed the quashing. The applicants confirmed in reply that they wished to pursue the applications before the Court.
18. The Court notes that it may proceed to strike a case from its list under Article 37

> 1 2 3 4 ... 5 6