Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.09.2010 «Дело Давлетханов и другие "Чернобыльские пенсионеры" (Davletkhanov and other "Chernobyl pensioners") против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF DAVLETKHANOV
AND OTHER "CHERNOBYL PENSIONERS" V. RUSSIA
(Applications Nos. 7182/03, 10115/04, 21752/04,
and 22963/04)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 23.IX.2010)

--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Davletkhanov and other "Chernobyl pensioners" v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina {Vajic} <*>,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Anatoly Kovler,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 September 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in four applications (Nos. 7182/03, 10115/04, 21752/04 and 22963/04) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by four Russian nationals ("the applicants"). The applicants' names and the dates of their applications to the Court appear in the table below.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by their Agents, Mr P. Laptev and Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights; and Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicants complained inter alia of the quashing of binding and enforceable judgments by way of supervisory-review in 2002 - 2005.
4. On various dates the President of the First Section decided to communicate these complaints to the respondent Government. It was also decided in all cases to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility (Article 29 § 1). The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits in several cases, but the Court rejected this objection.

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

5. The applicants, whose names and years of birth are tabulated below, took part in the cleaning-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. They were subsequently registered disabled, becoming entitled to various social benefits.
6. On various dates the applicants successfully sued authorities for inflation adjustment of these benefits. The judgments became final.
7. On various dates the Presidiums of higher courts allowed the defendant authorities' applications for supervisory review (in the case of Spivak it was the applicant who initiated supervisory review of the judgment of 30 October 2003, asking reversal of its part unfavourable to him) and quashed the judgments, considering that the lower courts misapplied the material law (see details of the judgments in the table below).

II. Relevant domestic law

8. The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure before 2003 is summed up in the Court's judgment in the case of Ryabykh v. Russia (No. 52854/99, §§ 31 - 42, ECHR 2003-IX), from 2003 - in the Court's judgment in the case of Kot v. Russia (No. 20887/03, § 17, 18 January 2007).

THE LAW

> 1 2 3 ... 4 5 6