Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 12.02.2009 «Дело Бодров (Bodrov) против России» [англ.]

he case, but incorrectly applied the multiplier of 1.5 in the applicant's case. The court found that the applicant's unit could not be considered as belonging to the nuclear weapons complex of Russia, because it had been discontinued before the list of such units had been established in the respective Decree of the Russian Government.
12. The applicant subsequently attempted to challenge the judgment of 8 December 2003 by lodging an application for its supervisory review with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. On 30 September 2004 the Supreme Court rejected his application.
13. At some point the Commissariat claimed return of the amount paid in execution of the judgment of 12 May 2003, referring to the fact that the judgment had been quashed by way of the supervisory review proceedings. The applicant contested the request for repayment on the ground that the sums already paid represented compensation for health damage which, once paid, could not be recovered in accordance with the domestic law.
14. On 22 January 2004 the Vologda Town Court dismissed the applicant's argument on the ground that the amount to be returned had been paid in respect of pension, not compensation for health damage. The court granted the Commissariat's application and ordered the applicant to return RUB 39,171.16 to the Commissariat.
15. On 20 February 2004 the Vologda Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
16. In 2005 the applicant's military unit was added to the list of the units belonging to the nuclear weapons complex of Russia, in accordance with the Decree No. 949 of 9 August 2005 by the President of the Russian Federation. In March 2007 the Commissariat recalculated the applicant's pension and increased it with the multiplier of 1.5, as from 1 January 2005.

B. The second round of the pension proceedings

17. The applicant brought a separate set of proceedings against the Commissariat for increase of his pension. He claimed index-linking of the monetary compensation instead of uncollected food allowance, which constituted a part of his pension, and arrears for the period from 1 January 2000 to 30 June 2005.
18. On 26 August 2005 the Vologda Regional Court rejected the claim in the final instance.

II. Relevant domestic law

19. For the relevant provisions on the supervisory review proceedings contained in the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation ("the CCivP") see the Court's judgment in the case of Sobelin and Others v. Russia (Nos. 30672/03 et seq., § 34, 3 May 2007).

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of quashing
of the judgment in the applicant's favour

20. With reference to Articles 6, 13, 14 and 17 the applicant complained in substance about unfairness of the quashing of the judgment of 12 May 2003 by way of supervisory review. He further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that as a result of the quashing he had been obliged to repay the pension and arrears paid to him to the respondent Commissariat. The Court will examine the quashing problem under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the relevant parts of which read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing within a reasonable time... 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...."

A. The

> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7