Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/66543.01-en-20051013/view/
Timestamp: 2020-08-11 10:17:13
Document Index: 279384047

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 66543', '§ 1', '§ 46', '§ 26', '§ 42', '§ 40', '§ 77', '§ 1', '§ 59', '§ 74', '§ 38']

VASILYEV v. RUSSIA About Project
CASE OF VASILYEV v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 66543/01)
In the case of Vasilyev v. Russia,
1. The case originated in an application (no. 66543/01) 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 Petr Fedotovich Vasilyev (“the applicant”), on 10 January 2001.
3. The applicant alleged that the award made in his favour had been subsequently quashed by way of supervisory review, which resulted in a decrease of his pension. He relied on Articles 2, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention in this connection.
5. By a decision of 1 April 2004 the Court declared the application admissible.
7. The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in the Orenburg Region.
8. As of 25 August 1995 the applicant has been in receipt of his old-age pension from the social security authorities.
9. On 23 June 1997 the Federal Law on Calculating and Upgrading State Pensions («О порядке исчисления и увеличения государственных пенсий», “the Pensions Law”) was adopted. It introduced a new scheme of calculating retirement benefits – “Individual Pensioner Coefficient” (“IPC”).
10. On 1 February 1998 the amount of the applicant’s pension was
re-assessed according to the Pensions Law. The Sakmarsky District Welfare Office of the Orenburg Region (Управление социальной защиты населения Сакмарского района Оренбургской области) decided that the IPC to be applied in the applicant’s case should be 0.420.
11. The applicant, who believed that he was eligible to an IPC of 0.641, sued the Sakmarsky District Welfare Office for insufficient increase of his pension.
12. On 11 October 1999 the Sakmarskiy District Court of the Orenburg Region found that the defendant had misinterpreted the Pensions Law.
It granted the applicant’s claim to apply the IPC at 0.641 for calculating his pension, increasing it by RUR 400, and awarded him arrears of RUR 3,647.82.
13. On 16 December 1999 the Orenburg Regional Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal, and the judgment of 11 October 1999 became final.
14. On 10 July 2000 the President of the Orenburg Regional Court lodged an extraordinary appeal (протест в порядке надзора) against the judgment of 11 October 1999.
15. On 17 July 2000 the Presidium of the Orenburg Regional Court examined the extraordinary appeal in the supervisory review procedure.
16. The Presidium found that the lower courts misinterpreted the Pensions Law. It varied the judgment of 11 October 1999 and the decision of 16 December 1999 by reinstating the applicant’s IPC at 0.420 and annulling the previously awarded increase as well as the arrears.
17. Under the Code of Civil Procedure of 1964, which was in force at the material time, judgments became final as follows:
18. The only further means of recourse was the special supervisory-review procedure that enabled courts to reopen final judgments:
19. The power of officials to lodge an application (protest) depended on their rank and territorial jurisdiction:
20. The power to lodge such applications was discretionary, that is to say it was solely for the official concerned to decide whether or not a particular case warranted supervisory review.
21. Under Article 322 officials listed in Article 320 who considered that a case deserved closer examination could, in certain circumstances, obtain the case file in order to establish whether good grounds for lodging an application existed.
22. Article 323 of the Code empowered the relevant officials to stay the execution of the judgment, decision or ruling in question until the supervisory review proceedings had been completed.
23. Courts hearing applications for supervisory review had extensive jurisdiction in respect of final judgments:
24. There was no time-limit for lodging an application for supervisory review, and, in principle, such applications could be lodged at any time after a judgment had become final.
25. The applicant complained that the award made in his favour was subsequently quashed by way of supervisory review, which resulted in a decrease of his pension. The Court will first examine this complaint under Article 6 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ...”
26. The respondent Government alleged that the judgment in the applicant’s favour had been quashed by the Presidium of the Orenburg Regional Court with a view to correcting a judicial error. The Government referred to the fact that the applicant’s dispute about his pension increase had been a part of a complex general problem caused by the vagueness of the Federal Law on Calculating and Upgrading State Pensions. The ambiguity was eliminated by an instruction passed on 29 December 1999 by the Ministry of Labour and Social Development to clarify how this law should be interpreted and applied. All disputes similar to the applicant’s one were resolved in accordance with this instruction thereafter. Furthermore, the lawfulness of the instruction was later confirmed by the Supreme Court on 24 April 2000.
27. The Government finally maintained that the supervisory proceedings complied with the Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore the quashing of the subordinate courts’ judgments could not be said to have violated the applicant’s right to fair trial.
28. The applicant contested the Government’s allegations and maintained his complaints.
29. The Court first notes that the dispute as to the increase of the applicant’s old-age pension was of a pecuniary nature and indisputably concerned a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 17, § 46; Massa v. Italy, judgment of 24 August 1993, Series A no. 265-B, p. 20, § 26; Süßmann v. Germany, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, p. 1170, § 42 and, as a recent authority, Tričković v. Slovenia, no. 39914/98, § 40, 12 June 2001).
30. The Court observes that the issue of the present case is whether the supervisory review procedure permitting a final judgment to be quashed can be considered compatible with Article 6 and, in particular, whether on the facts of the present case the principle of legal certainty was respected.
31. The Court finds that this case is similar to the case of Ryabykh v. Russia (no. 52854/99, ECHR 2003-IX), where it was said, in so far as relevant to the instant case:
32. Furthermore, the Court has found in this respect in its above-mentioned judgment Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, § 77:
33. The Court notes that in the instant case in July 2000 the President of the Orenburg Regional Court lodged a “protest” against the judgment of 11 October 1999 in the applicant’s favour that had become final and binding. On 17 July 2000 the Presidium of the Orenburg Regional Court quashed this decision as erroneous and took a new decision to dismiss the applicant’s claim.
34. The Court does not find any reason for departing from its aforementioned judgments. It considers that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the quashing of the final and binding judgment given in the applicant’s case.
35. The Court will next examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol 1 which provides as follows:
36. As to whether the applicant’s property right has been violated, the Government contended that the applicant had not acquired property since the judgment which conferred the title on him had been unlawful. They concluded that Article 1 of Protocol 1 has not been violated by the quashing of the judgment of 11 October 1999.
37. The applicant contested the Government’s allegations and maintained his complaints.
38. The Court reiterates first that the Convention does not guarantee, as such, the right to an old-age pension or any social benefit in a particular amount (see, for example, Aunola v. Finland (dec.), no. 30517/96, 15 March 2001). However a “claim”—even concerning a pension—can constitute a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Stran Greek Refineries v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301, § 59).
39. The judgment of the Sakmarskiy District Court of 11 October 1999 as upheld by the Orenburg Regional Court on 16 December 1999 provided the applicant with an enforceable claim to receive an increased pension with the IPC of 0.641 and the arrears of RUR 3,647.82. This judgment became final after it had been upheld on appeal.
40. The Court finds that the decision of the Orenburg Regional Court of 17 July 2000 reinstating the applicant’s IPC at 0.420 and voiding the previously awarded increase as well as the arrears constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 74, ECHR 1999-VII and Pravednaya v. Russia, no. 69529/01, §§ 38-39, 18 November 2004).
41. While the Court accepts that this measure was lawful and pursued the public interest (such as, for example, an efficient and harmonised State pension scheme), its compliance with the requirement of proportionality is questionable.
42. It is true that recalculation of one’s pension and its decrease does not, as such, violate Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Skorkiewicz v Poland (dec.), no. 39860/98, 1 June 1998). However, backdating the recalculation with the effect that the awarded sums already transferred (or overdue) are reduced involves an individual and excessive burden for the applicant and is thus incompatible with Article 1 of the Protocol. In this respect, the Court recalls the aforementioned Pravednaya judgment, where, in a somewhat similar set of facts, it was said:
43. The Court does not find any reason to depart from its conclusions in that judgment and finds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the present case too.
45. The applicant claimed USD 30,000 in respect of pecuniary and
46. The Government considered this claim to be excessive, unreasonable and unsubstantiated.
47. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the extensive pecuniary damage alleged. However, in respect of the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court considers it appropriate to award the applicant EUR 230, representing the sum the applicant would have received had the reduction of the pension ordered by the decision of 17 July 2000 not been backdated, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
48. As regards the non-pecuniary damage, the Court takes the view that the applicant has suffered some non-pecuniary damage as a result of the violations found which cannot be made good by the Court’s mere finding of a violation. Nevertheless, the amount claimed is excessive.
49. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicant the sum of EUR 500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
50. The applicant did not make any claims for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and before the Court.
51. Accordingly, the Court does not award anything under this head.
(i) EUR 230 (two hundred thirty euros) in respect of pecuniary damage;
VASILYEV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT