s. 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.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."
A. Admissibility
7. The Government argued that the applications were inadmissible.
Supervisory review had been a legitimate feature of Russia's legal system. The judgments had had to be quashed because they had been based on a misapplication of law and hence had contained a fundamental defect. The supervisory review had aimed to ensure a uniform application of pension laws and hence promoted legal certainty. The domestic procedure for supervisory review had been respected. The supervisory review had been set in motion by a party to the proceedings and had happened shortly after the judgments had become binding.
In the cases at hand, the supervisory review had not breached Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 because the authorities left to the applicants the sums paid before the quashing. Besides, since the Presidium had in the end found that the applicants' claims had been unfounded, they had not had a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
8. The applicants insisted that their applications were admissible.
The judgments had been correct. The Presidium's disagreement with the lower courts' reading of the law had not justified the quashing. Even though the State had left to the applicants the sums paid before the quashing, these sums had still been lower that they should have been under the judgments.
9. The Court notes that the applications are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
10. The Court has earlier found a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in similar circumstances (see Senchenko and Others and 35 other "Yakut pensioners" cases v. Russia, Nos. 32865/06, 3137/07, 3158/07, 5650/07, 5654/07, 5657/07, 5663/07, 6727/07, 6822/07, 6828/07, 6846/07, 8553/07, 8560/07, 11576/07, 11578/07, 11582/07, 11583/07, 11584/07, 11585/07, 12966/07, 13830/07, 13831/07, 13833/07, 13835/07, 19001/07, 19003/07, 19736/07, 19738/07, 19740/07, 19741/07, 19744/07, 19746/07, 19749/07, 19752/07, 20343/07, and 20939/07, 28 May 2009). There is no reason to depart from that finding in the present case.
11. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
12. 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."
13. The applicants set out claims for just satisfaction in their initial application forms, but failed to resubmit these claims at the appropriate stage of the proceedings, i.e. after notice of the applications had been given to the Government.
14. Nevertheless, the Court considers it reasonable in the circumstances of the present applications to grant the applicants just satisfaction ad hoc (see, with further references, Senchenko and Others and 35 other "Yakut pensioners" cases v. Russia, cited above). Making its assessment on an equitable and reasonable basis, the Court awards each app
> 1 2 3 4 ... 5
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
