Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.10.2009 «Дело Финков (Finkov) против России» [англ.]

dgment of 22 May 2000.
46. After the resumption of the proceedings the applicant amended his claims several times. Eventually he claimed damages for the delays in payments and failures to adjust them, making the claims similar to those considered in another case (see para. 35 above).
47. On 17 January 2007 the Leninskiy District Court granted the applicant's claims in part. It made the relevant adjustments and awarded the applicant compensation for the underpaid sums in the amount of RUB 231,065.39, monthly payments of RUB 7,766.51 and yearly payments of RUB 2,387.32.
48. On 14 May 2007 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
49. The monthly payments were made without delay. As to the lump sum, it was received by the applicant in November 2007.

E. Second set of proceedings concerning indexation
of monthly payments

50. In July 2000 the applicant lodged another action seeking adjustment of his monthly payments to take account of increases of the minimum monthly wage.
51. On 27 October 2000 the Leninskiy District Court upheld the action. That judgment was quashed on appeal on 21 August 2002 and the case was remitted for a fresh examination.
52. On 4 October 2002 the District Court dismissed the claims in full. On 25 December 2002 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment.

F. Proceedings concerning the reduction of monthly payments

53. In September 2000 the authorities, by a unilateral decision, reduced the amount of monthly payments to the applicant. Two months later he lodged an action against the authorities complaining about the reduction and seeking compensation for damage.
54. On 13 December 2000 the Pervomayskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don held that the authorities the applicant sued were not the proper respondent and disallowed the action against them. However, the District Court ordered another authority, the local Social Security Service, to join the proceedings as a respondent party and to resume payments of monthly sums to the applicant in accordance with the judgment of 18 November 1997.
55. On 28 January 2001 the Rostov Regional Court, acting on appeal, upheld the judgment of 13 December 2000 in the part concerning the disallowance but quashed the remaining part of the judgment and sent the matter for a fresh examination.
56. On 15 November 2001, as a result of the re-examination, the District Court dismissed the applicant's claims in full. The applicant did not appeal.

G. First set of proceedings concerning
provision of information

57. The applicant lodged an action before the Pervomayskiy District Court asking for information to be disclosed about local judges who had not been provided with housing premises in accordance with the law. By the final judgment of 19 December 2001 the Rostov Regional Court dismissed the action, noting that the information was confidential.

H. Second set of proceedings concerning
provision of information

58. In 2001 the applicant unsuccessfully asked the authorities to provide him with information concerning the representation of their interests in courts. He complained about the refusal to a court.
59. On 19 December 2001 the Rostov Regional Court, in the final instance, dismissed the complaint, noting that the applicant's rights and freedoms had not been infringed by the refusal.

I. Complaints to the Constitutional Court
of the Russian Federation

60. On 24 January 2001 the applicant brought proceedings before the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation claiming unconstitutionality of some of the law provisions concerning payments for disability caused by the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 9 10 11