Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by 90 Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are tabulated in the Annex ("the applicants"). The applications' dates of introduction are also tabulated in the Annex.
On 4 September 2007 one of the applicants, Ms Skripka Nadezhda Yegorovna, died, and her daughter, Ms Skripka Oksana Vasiliyevna, adopted her application. On an unspecified date another applicant, Mr Maznitsa Dmitriy Anatolyevich, died, but no heir showed interest in pursuing his application.
2. The applicants were represented by Mr I. Novikov, a lawyer practising in Novosibirsk. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The President of the First Section decided to communicate 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) and to join the applications (Rule 42 of the Rules of Court).
THE FACTS
4. The applicants are pensioners. They sued a pension authority for miscalculating their pensions. The Neryungri Town Court of Yakutia held for the applicants. The Supreme Court of Yakutia upheld those judgments on appeal and they became binding. Later, on the pension authority's request, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Yakutia quashed the judgments on supervisory review because it considered that the courts below had misinterpreted material law. The dates of the court decisions are tabulated in the Annex.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6
of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
5. The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the quashing of their judgments. The Court considers it appropriate to examine this complaint under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 only. 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
6. The Government argued that the applications were inadmissible.
The proceedings in question had been outside the sphere of Article 6 because they had concerned pension laws of a general application.
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.
Annulment of binding judgments had been legitimate in a democratic society and known, for example, to such countries as Germany, Austria, and Switzerl
> 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
