364/08, 45346/08, 46204/08, 46214/08, 59620/08, 59622/08, 59630/08, 59691/08, 59692/08, 59695/08, 59696/08 and 59701/08) 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 56 Russian citizens whose names and dates of birth are tabulated in the Annex ("the applicants"). The applications' dates of introduction are also tabulated in the Annex.
2. The applicants were represented, respectively, by Mr M. Antonov, Mr I. Fedotov, Mr V. Glukhov, Mr G. Migay, Mr. Y. Pakin, and Ms L. Yerokhina, consultants from the Moscow Region. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. In September 2008 - January 2009 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the applications to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility (Article 29 § 3). The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits, but the Court rejected this objection.
THE FACTS <*>
--------------------------------
<*> Factual details concerning individual applications are given in the Annex.
4. The applicants are pensioners who live in the Moscow Region. Before retirement they used to work in hazardous industries. They had a dispute with a pension authority about the scope of their privileged pensions and appealed to the Region's district and town courts.
5. In May 2005 - November 2006 the courts held for the applicants and ordered the pension authority to recalculate the pensions. The courts based their findings on the Law on Labour Pensions. In May 2005 - February 2007 these judgments became binding and were executed.
6. On the pension authority's request, in November 2007 - April 2008 the district and town courts quashed their judgments due to discovery of new circumstances. The courts found, in particular, that the judgments had ignored the interpretation of the Law on Labour Pensions given by the Supreme Court in December 2005 and March 2007.
7. The applicants' cases were remitted for a rehearing and subsequently dismissed.
THE LAW
I. Joinder of the applications
8. As the applications are similar in terms of both fact and law, the Court decides to join them.
II. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
9. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the quashing of the binding judgments was unjustified. Insofar as relevant, these Articles read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... 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.
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
10. The Government argued that the applications were inadmissible. The Supreme Court's interpretations of the Law on Labour Pensions revealed fundamental errors in the district and town courts' reasoning, and hence thos
> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 ... 13 14 15
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
