EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF FINKOV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 27440/03)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 8.X.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 Finkov 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 {Andre} Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 September 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 27440/03) 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, Mr Yevgeniy Valentinovich Finkov ("the applicant"), on 5 February 2001, 1 August 2003, 8 January 2004 and 27 January 2006.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by their Agents, Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights; Mr Savenkov, former acting Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights; and Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 13 November 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. The circumstances of the case
4. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Rostov-on-Don.
5. In 1986 the applicant took part in the cleaning-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. He was subsequently granted Category 2 disability status and became entitled to various social benefits. The subjects of the present case are the disputes concerning these benefits.
A. Proceedings in 1996
6. In 1996 the applicant lodged a complaint before the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don alleging a failure of the authorities to comply with the pension law. On 24 July 1996 the District Court upheld the complaint, noting the authorities' unlawful inactivity.
B. Proceedings for compensation for health damage
and food allowance
1. Judgment of 18 November 1997
7. On 18 November 1997 the Proletarskiy District Court upheld the applicant's action against the authorities and awarded him monthly payments of 2,495,023 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation for health damage and as food allowance. The District Court also awarded him a lump sum of RUB 47,314,000 in outstanding compensation. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. The authorities did not pay the applicant the lump sum, and made the monthly payments only until September 2000.
2. Quashing of the judgment of 18 November 1997
and ensuing proceedings
8. On 15 March 2001 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgment of 18
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11