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 £1, 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!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF POPOVA and other “Privileged pensioners”
v. RUSSIA
(Applications
nos. 32310/08, 33191/08, 43100/08, 46454/08, 57961/08, 5517/09 and
10564/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23
September 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Popova and other
“Privileged pensioners” v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Commitee
composed of:
Nina Vajić, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Khanlar
Hajiyev, judges,
and André Wampach,
Deputy Section
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2
September 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in seven applications (nos. 32310/08, 33191/08,
43100/08, 46454/08, 57961/08, 5517/09 and 10564/09) 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 seven 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.
- The
applicants were represented by Mr I. Fedotov and Mr G. Migay,
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.
- The
President of the First Section decided to give notice of the
applications to the Government. In accordance with Article 26 § 1
of the Convention as amended by Protocol No. 14, the applications
were assigned to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
- 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 town courts.
- In
2004–06 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. These judgments became
binding and were executed.
- On
the pension authority’s request, in 2007–08 the 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.
- The
applicants’ cases were remitted for a rehearing and eventually
dismissed.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
- As
the applications are similar in both facts 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
- 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
- The
Government argued that the applications were inadmissible. The
Supreme Court’s interpretations of the Law on Labour Pensions
revealed fundamental errors in the town courts’ reasoning, and
hence those judgments had had to be quashed. The quashing had been
legitimate, lawful, and compliant with the principle of legal
certainty. The quashing had been meant to ensure a uniform and
coherent functioning of the State pension scheme and to protect the
public purse from undue depletion.
- The
applicants argued that their applications were admissible. The
quashing had been unjustified because the town courts did take into
account the interpretation of 2005, and because the interpretation of
2007 had been given after the judgments. In any event, a legislative
interpretation of laws might come only from a lawmaker, not from a
court. Besides, the pension authority had missed the statutory
time-limit for the quashing, and the courts had extended that limit
without good reason.
- 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
- The
Court reiterates that for the sake of legal certainty implicitly
required by Article 6, final judgments should generally be left
intact. They may be disturbed only to correct fundamental defects
(see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §§ 51–52,
ECHR 2003-IX). Quashing of judgments because of newly-discovered
circumstances is not by itself incompatible with this requirement,
but the manner of its application may be (see Pravednaya v.
Russia, no. 69529/01, §§ 27–34, 18 November
2004).
- In
present case, the domestic courts justified the quashing with the
Supreme Court’s two interpretations of the Law on Labour
Pensions.
As to
the interpretation of 2005, the Court considers that differing
judicial interpretations of a law represent a ground for an ordinary
appeal, rather than a discovery warranting a quashing of a binding
judgment (see Yerogova v. Russia, no. 77478/01, § 34, 19
June 2008).
As to
the interpretation of 2007, the Court reiterates that
newly-discovered circumstances are circumstances that exist during
the trial, remain hidden from the court, and become known after
trial. Since the interpretation of 2007 was posterior to the town
courts’ judgments, it did not justify the quashing either (see
Yerogova, cited above, § 33).
- It
follows that the quashing of the applicants’ judgments was
unjustified, and that there has, accordingly, been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- 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.”
A. Damage, costs, and expenses
- The
applicants claimed a range of sums in respect of pecuniary damage.
According to the applicants, these sums represented the difference
between the pensions they had been receiving after the quashing and
the pensions they would have received if there had been no quashing.
The Government argued that this claim was excessive and unreasonable.
- The
Court rejects this claim in view of its speculative character (see
Tarnopolskaya and Others v. Russia, nos 11093/07, 14558/07,
19660/07, 30166/07, 46736/07, 52681/07, 52985/07, 10633/08, 10652/08,
12694/08, 15437/08, 16691/08, 19447/07, 19457/08, 20857/08, 20872/08,
22546/08, 25820/08, 25839/08 and 25845/08, § 51, 9 July 2009).
- The
applicants also claimed a range of sums in respect of non-pecuniary
damage. The Government contested this claim as ill-founded.
- The
applicants further claimed a range of sums in respect of costs and
expenses incurred before the Court. The Government noted that any
possible award should cover only proven expenses.
- The
Court reiterates that it is an international judicial authority
contingent on the consent of the States signatory to the Convention,
and that its principal task is to secure the respect for human
rights, rather than compensate applicants’ losses minutely and
exhaustively. Unlike in national jurisdictions, the emphasis of the
Court’s activity is on passing public judgments that set
human-rights standards across Europe.
- For
this reason, in cases involving many similarly situated victims a
unified approach may be called for. This approach will ensure that
the applicants remain aggregated and that no disparity in the level
of the awards will have a divisive effect on the applicants (see
Goncharova and Others and 68 other “Privileged
Pensioners” cases v. Russia, no.
23113/08 et seq., § 23, 15 October 2009).
- In
view of the above, making its assessment on equitable and reasonable
bases, the Court awards each applicant 2,000 euros (EUR) in
respect of non-pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses.
B. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Decides to join the applications;
- Declares the applications admissible ;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three months
EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and costs and
expenses, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable
at the date of settlement;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’
claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 September 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Nina
Vajić
Deputy Section Registrar President
|
Application
no.
|
Introduced
on
|
Applicant
|
Born
in
|
Judgment
of
|
Binding
on
|
Quashed
on
|
|
32310/08
|
21/06/08
|
Popova
Albina Mikhaylovna
|
1940
|
21/09/06
|
21/12/06
|
17/01/08
|
|
33191/08
|
12/05/08
|
Kuznetsova
Nadezhda Ataulovna
|
1937
|
27/06/06
|
01/09/06
|
12/11/07
|
|
43100/08
|
17/08/08
|
Sergeyeva
Antonina Aleksandrovna
|
1949
|
03/12/04
|
16/03/05
|
27/02/08
|
|
46454/08
|
23/07/08
|
Konin
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich
|
1935
|
23/10/06
|
21/12/06
|
21/01/08
|
|
57961/08
|
04/09/08
|
Vlasovskaya
Raisa Tikhonovna
|
1941
|
27/10/06
|
08/12/06
|
25/03/08
|
|
5517/09
|
01/10/08
|
Solovykh
Lyudmila Ivanovna
|
1948
|
25/10/06
|
28/12/06
|
10/06/08
|
|
10564/09
|
20/09/08
|
Zherebenkov
Nikolay Fedorovich
|
1947
|
11/04/06
|
16/06/06
|
28/03/08
|
