Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 30.07.2009 «Дело Хотулева (Khotuleva) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF KHOTULEVA v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 27114/04)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 30.VII.2009)

--------------------------------
<*> 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 Khotuleva v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Nina {Vajic} <*>, President,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 July 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 27114/04) 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 a Russian national, Ms Nina Dmitriyevna Khotuleva ("the applicant"), on 14 September 2001.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that the final judgment in her favour of 4 April 2000, as upheld on 30 May 2000, was not enforced and was subsequently quashed by way of supervisory review on 25 January 2001.
4. On 8 December 2006 the President of the First Section decided to communicate these complaints to the respondent Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

5. The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Safonovo, Smolensk Region.
6. In January 2000 the applicant applied to the Safonovskiy Town Court of the Smolensk Region for recalculation of her pension.
7. On 4 April 2000 the Safonovskiy Town Court found in her favour and ordered the social welfare authority to recalculate her pension in accordance with the relevant provisions of the domestic law and to apply an individual pension rate of 0.7 for its recalculation. On 30 May 2000 the Smolensk Regional Court upheld this judgment on appeal.
8. On 25 January 2001 the Presidium of the Smolensk Regional Court on the initiative of the President of the Smolensk Regional Court quashed the judgment and the decision and dismissed the applicant's claim in full. The applicant was informed about it in April 2001. The Presidium based its decision on that the lower courts had misinterpreted the relevant substantive law provisions.

II. Relevant domestic law

9. The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure in the material time is summed up in the Court's judgment in the case of Ryabykh (see Ryabykh v. Russia, No. 52854/99, §§ 31 - 42, ECHR 2003-IX).

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account
of supervisory review

10. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the judgment of 4 April 2000, as upheld on 30 May 2000, had been quashed on a supervisory review on 25 January 2001. The Co

> 1 2 3 ... 4