ol No. 1. Quashing of such a judgment amounts to an interference with his or her right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see, among other authorities, Androsov v. Russia, No. 63973/00, § 69, 6 October 2005).
28. In so far as the Government submitted that the applicants had failed to appear before the court in a new round of the proceedings before the Town Court, the Court observes that the core issue before it is the quashing of the final and binding judgments given in the applicants' favour. Such a quashing is regarded in the case-law as an instantaneous act (see Sitokhova v. Russia (dec.), No. 55609/00, 2 September 2004). Thus, the eventual outcome of the post-quashing proceedings is not directly relevant for the Court's analysis of the complaint about the annulment of the judgments in the applicants' favour (see Ivanova v. Ukraine, No. 74104/01, §§ 35 - 38, 13 September 2005), unless, as a result of the subsequent proceedings, the applicants obtained more than they had had before the supervisory review (see, among others, Gavrilenko v. Russia, No. 30674/03, § 40, 15 February 2007), which is clearly not the case.
29. The Court further observes that by virtue of the judgments of 4 June 2007 the applicants' pensions were considerably increased. The annulment of the enforceable judgments frustrated the applicants' reliance on a binding judicial decision and deprived them of an opportunity to receive the money they had legitimately expected to receive. In these circumstances, even assuming that the interference was lawful and pursued a legitimate aim, the Court considers that the quashing of the enforceable judgments in the applicants' favour by way of supervisory review placed an excessive burden on the applicants and was incompatible with Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1.
30. There has therefore been a violation of that Article.
III. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
31. The applicants also complained under Article 13 about the lack of effective domestic remedies against the quashing of the final judgment in their favour.
32. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
33. However, having found above that the supervisory review breached the applicants' substantive rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint about the absence of effective remedies with regard to the proceedings engendered by that supervisory review (see Sitkov v. Russia, No. 55531/00, § 39, 18 January 2007).
IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
34. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
A. Damage
1. The parties' submissions
35. As regards pecuniary damage, the applicants claimed that the quashed judgments be enforced in the part awarding the monthly payments. Each applicant also claimed 4,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
36. The Government contested the claims, arguing that the applicants had lost interest in pursuing their applications. They also asserted that the quashed judgments in the applicants' favour had been executed. As regards the claims for non-pecuniary damage, they submitted that these claims were excessive and unreasonable.
2. The Court's assessment
37.
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
