and. Besides, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe had found that Russia's supervisory-review procedure had improved.
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.
7. 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.
8. The Court notes, first, that Mr Maznitsa has died and that no heir has shown interest in pursuing his part of application No. 6727/07. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of that application. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike Mr Maznitsa's part of application No. 6727/07 out of the list.
9. As to the other applicants, the Court finds that their disputes concerned their individual pensions and hence fell within the ambit of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Magomedov v. Russia, No. 20111/03, § 16, 4 December 2008).
10. 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
11. The Court has earlier found violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 where, like in the present cases, supervisory review was used to quash a binding judgment on the ground of an alleged misinterpretation of material law (see, for example, Kot v. Russia, No. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007). There is no reason to depart from that finding in the present case.
12. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
13. 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."
14. 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.
15. Nevertheless, the Court considers it reasonable in the circumstances of the present applications to grant the applicants just satisfaction ad hoc (see Levochkina v. Russia, No. 944/02, §§ 53 - 55, 5 July 2007). Making its assessment on an equitable and reasonable basis, the Court awards each applicant 2,000 euros in respect of pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Decides to strike out of its list of cases Mr Maznitsa's part of application No. 6727/07;
3. Declares the other applications admissible;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
5. Hol
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 ... 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
