BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Tatyana Vasilyevna BOKOVA v Russia - 55997/08 [2011] ECHR 892 (17 May 2011 URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/892.html |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
55997/08
by Tatyana Vasilyevna BOKOVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 May 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Christos
Rozakis, President,
Anatoly
Kovler,
George
Nicolaou, judges,
and
André Wampach, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 September 2008,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 29 July 2010 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Bokova Tatyana Vasilyevna, is Russian national who was born in 1932 and lives in the village of Babeyevo, Moscow region, Russia. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a pensioner, and before her retirement she used to work in hazardous industries. She had a dispute with a pension authority about the scope of her privileged pension and lodged a claim for its recalculation.
By judgment of 14 November 2006 (“the judgment”) the Elektrostal Town Court of the Moscow region granted the applicant’s claim and ordered the pension authority to recalculate the pension. The court based its findings on the Law on Labour Pensions. The judgment became final on 26 January 2007.
On the pension authority’s request, on 3 April 2008 the Elektrostal Town Court of the Moscow region quashed its judgment due to newly-discovered circumstances. The court found, in particular, that the judgment had ignored the interpretation of the Law on Labour Pensions given by the Supreme Court in December 2005 and March 2007. On the same day the applicant’s case was remitted for a rehearing. After the rehearing the court held for the authorities.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the quashing of the binding judgment was unjustified.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about an unjustified quashing of the binding judgment in her favour. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which, in so far as relevant, provide 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.”
By letter dated 29 July 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. The authorities acknowledged the fact that the applicant’s rights, guaranteed by the Convention, were violated in connection with the quashing of the judgment of 14 November 2006 and declared that they were ready to pay the applicant ex gratia the sum of 2,000 euros as just satisfaction. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The remainder of the declaration provided as follows:
“The referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
In a letter of 10 September 2010 the applicant informed the Court that she agreed to the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration.
The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases (see Ryabov and 151 other “Privileged pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 4563/07 et al., 17 December 2009) – as well as to the applicant’s consent with the terms of the declaration, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic (see Ryabov and 151 other “Privileged pensioners” cases, cited above), the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Curt unanimously:
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
André Wampach Christos Rozakis
Deputy
Registrar President