CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 29 juillet 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3F315690 { width:224.15pt; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEBA8B701 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9059D239 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s132B84CB { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify } .sAA8DEB86 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s82D7B801 { width:22.93pt; display:inline-block } .sF9287AF { width:174.97pt; display:inline-block } .sF2E32F9B { width:36.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5F32E900 { width:208.31pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s57395D7A { height:28.35pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85E23CCD { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s5752D6FA { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps } .s74C12B71 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sB673203C { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s6C18BF5A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:15.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s459DC120 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4DC53971 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-transform:uppercase } .s8DD1D08A { vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sAD307068 { margin-left:16.31pt; text-align:center; padding-left:19.69pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; font-weight:bold } .s712F3B90 { height:142.4pt } .s9FBA53DE { margin-left:21.31pt; padding-left:14.69pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; font-weight:bold } .sD9E934D1 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s97B7A124 { margin-left:21.31pt; text-align:center; padding-left:14.69pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; font-weight:bold } .sC091C26B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:3.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s93D016DB { margin-left:21.31pt; text-align:center; padding-left:14.69pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .s6A4DA885 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; background-color:#ffffff } .sAB1DF199 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt; background-color:#ffffff } .s12A66D70 { height:44.05pt } .s9538EC41 { height:0pt } .s8B39D7B5 { width:0.4pt } .s30BE008E { width:23.4pt } .sE6A77BC9 { width:62.55pt } .s1AEFA446 { width:96.3pt } .sB7591E2F { width:79.7pt } .sAB0BE2F1 { width:65.5pt } .s74095E0B { width:71.3pt } .sAB0BE2F6 { width:65.2pt } .s301F5D42 { width:73.75pt } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .s417B2516 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .sA0108617 { width:110.92%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s3465B0A7 { height:17.85pt } .s6C5A6A4E { width:8.64%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s7EECFA39 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s69A0B7DA { width:16.88%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sCB231B81 { width:50.02%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .sCEF844C6 { width:24.46%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s9DD34CD6 { height:17pt } .s944BA8BF { width:8.64%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s62EA6BD4 { margin-left:27.54pt; text-align:center; padding-left:4.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s99CEB7C3 { width:16.88%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s4D3B394 { width:50.02%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s90A5F1B8 { width:24.46%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .sC7F8CD86 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s32DF7B7F { margin-left:32.2pt; text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .s9EC3D246 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s103F1CA8 { width:24.46%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDF856F6 { width:24.46%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; background-color:#ffffff } .sA3BF04DE { width:16.88%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; background-color:#ffffff } .s8DC45417 { width:50.02%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; background-color:#ffffff } .sF2BA6D70 { height:40.05pt } .s4E056575 { height:38.95pt } .sA62F5D69 { width:8.64%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s2194BD6E { width:16.88%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .sA2593A19 { width:50.02%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s23E90313 { width:24.46%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   FIRST SECTION   CASE OF STRELTSOV AND OTHER “ Novocherkassk military pensioners” v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 8549/06, 17763/06, 18352/06, 18354/06, 18835/06, 18848/06, 18851/06, 18856/06, 18916/06, 18952/06, 19350/06, 19352/06, 19353/06, 20423/06, 20904/06, 20906/06, 20907/06, 21081/06, 21123/06, 21124/06, 21179/06, 21189/06, 24041/06, 24048/06, 24055/06, 24058/06, 24816/06, 25029/06, 25043/06, 25044/06, 25442/06, 25717/06, 25721/06, 25827/06, 25831/06, 25920/06, 25922/06, 25923/06, 26440/06, 26654/06, 26706/06, 26709/06, 26766/06, 26972/06, 26981/06, 26983/06, 27709/06, 27710/06, 27714/06, 27716/06, 27718/06, 27833/06, 27840/06, 28105/06, 28231/06, 28886/06, 28888/06, 30481/06, 30494/06, 31422/06, 31424/06, 31436/06, 31410/06, 31411/06, 31414/06, 31427/06, 31429/06, 31433/06, 31419/06, 31309/06, 31324/06, 31439/06, 32419/06, 32421/06, 34443/06, 40256/06, 41560/06, 42694/06, 42695/06, 42696/06, 42697/06, 42701/06, 5648/07, 6167/07, 6902/07, 7869/07, 39423/07)   JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 4 November 2010 under Rule 81 of the Rules of the Court   STRASBOURG 29 July 2010   FINAL   29/10/2010   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Streltsov and other “Novocherkassk military pensioners” v. Russia , The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 6 July 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in eighty-seven applications (nos. 8549/06, 17763/06, 18352/06, 18354/06, 18835/06, 18848/06, 18851/06, 18856/06, 18916/06, 18952/06, 19350/06, 19352/06, 19353/06, 20423/06, 20904/06, 20906/06, 20907/06, 21081/06, 21123/06, 21124/06, 21179/06, 21189/06, 24041/06, 24048/06, 24055/06, 24058/06, 24816/06, 25029/06, 25043/06, 25044/06, 25442/06, 25717/06, 25721/06, 25827/06, 25831/06, 25920/06, 25922/06, 25923/06, 26440/06, 26654/06, 26706/06, 26709/06, 26766/06, 26972/06, 26981/06, 26983/06, 27709/06, 27710/06, 27714/06, 27716/06, 27718/06, 27833/06, 27840/06, 28105/06, 28231/06, 28886/06, 28888/06, 30481/06, 30494/06, 31422/06, 31424/06, 31436/06, 31410/06, 31411/06, 31414/06, 31427/06, 31429/06, 31433/06, 31419/06, 31309/06, 31324/06, 31439/06, 32419/06, 32421/06, 34443/06, 40256/06, 41560/06, 42694/06, 42695/06, 42696/06, 42697/06, 42701/06, 5648/07, 6167/07, 6902/07, 7869/07, 39423/07) 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 eighty-seven Russian nationals, (“the applicants”), on various dates listed below. 2.     All applicants except for Mr Dvoretskiy were represented by Mr   P.V.   Sedlyar, a lawyer practising in Novocherkassk. Mr Dvoretskiy was not represented in the proceedings before the Court. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk and subsequently by Mr G. Matyushkin, both the Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     On various dates the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility (Article   29 § 1). 4.     By letter of 15 June 2009 Mrs Tatyana Nikolayevna Melnikova (born on 23 January 1948), Mr N.N. Melnikov's widow, informed the Court that on 15 December 2006 Mr N.N. Melnikov, the applicant in case no.   31419/06, had passed away, and she wished to maintain her late husband's case before the Court. 5.     In letter dated 17 December 2009 Mr Vadim Nikolayevich Zakharov (born on 3 May 1979), Mr N.P. Zakharov's son, informed the Court that Mr   N.P. Zakharov (application no.   28888/06) had died on 15 November 2009. The son expressed a wish to pursue the application in his stead. 6.     For the sake of convenience, the Court will, however, continue to refer to Mr   N.P. Zakharov and Mr N.N. Melnikov as “the applicants”. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7.     The eighty-seven applicants were born on the dates listed in Annex I and live in Novocherkassk, the Rostov Region. 8.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. A.     Initial domestic awards and subsequent enforcement proceedings 9.     The applicants, retired military officers, sued the military commissariats of Novocherkassk and the Rostov Region for recalculation of their pensions. One group of the applicants sought adjustment of the pension to the minimum wage and claimed arrears for 1995-1998 in line with the increase in the latter. Another group of the applicants claimed recalculation of their pensions on account of the increase of the monetary compensation paid in respect of the food allowance. Several applicants raised both types of claims before the domestic courts. 10.     On the dates listed in Annex I the domestic courts found in the applicants' favour. As regards the case no. 25442/06 by Mr Pavlov, the judgment of 22 September 2004 was issued by the Justice of the Peace of the 6 th Circuit of Novocherkassk. The judgment of 30 August 2004 in favour of Mr Pavlov, as well as all the judgments in favour of the remaining eighty-six applicants, were issued by the Novocherkassk Town Court of the Rostov Region. 11.     The court ordered in respect of the first type of the claims that the pensions be adjusted to the minimum wage and that the arrears be paid to the applicants. As concerns the second type of the claims, the court held that the pensions should be increased in line with the increase of the daily food allowance and awarded the applicants the respective lump sums in arrears. The awards were made against the Military Commissariat of the Rostov Region, while the respective claims against the commissariat of Novocherkassk had been dismissed. 12.     The representatives of the Military Commissariat of the Rostov Region were present at the court room on 30 August and 15 September 2004. 13.     In several cases the respondent authority introduced the grounds of appeal with the Town Court. However, on various dates in 2004 the respondent authority revoked their applications. For example, in case of Mr   Turutin (no. 18952/06) the grounds for appeal were revoked on 10   November 2004. As a result, none of the judgments was appealed against. They entered into force ten days later. 14.     The applicants took various steps to obtain execution of the judgment. In particular, the Government submitted that in September-October 2004 Mr Sobolev, Mr Sedlyar and 31 other applicants sent the writs of execution to the respondent authority. It follows from the incoming correspondence log of the Rostov Regional Military Commissariat that the latter received the writs. 15.     In 2005 the military prosecutor's office started an inquiry into lawfulness of proceedings concerning military pension arrears throughout the Rostov Region and detected several instances of fraud. In particular, they found out that the respondent commissariat on several occasions had made payments against forged writs of execution issued in the similar but unrelated proceedings. On various dates the enforcement proceedings in the cases at hand were suspended pending the region wide inquiry, because the prosecutor's office had to establish authenticity of the writs of execution issued in the applicants' cases. It appears that the investigation did not reveal any evidence of fraud in the present cases. 16.     According to the Government, in September 2005 judge A. who had issued the judgments in question was dismissed by the decision of the Judicial Qualification Board of the Rostov Region. At some point several high officials of the Military Commissariat of the Rostov Region had been charged with and convicted of embezzlement. 17.     As regards the group of nineteen applicants named in Part A of Annex I, the domestic awards in their favour were fully executed by the respondent authorities on the dates specified in the table. As concerns the remaining applicants whose names are listed in Part B of Annex I, at least one judgment in their favour has remained unenforced. B.     Supervisory review proceedings 18.     On various dates in 2005-2007 the respondent commissariat applied for the supervisory review of the judgments. 19.     According to the Government's observations, thirty-three requests for review were lodged outside the one-year time-limit from the date of the judgment's entry into force. In such cases, the respondent authority also applied for extension of the time-limit for application for supervisory review arguing that it had not received copies of the respective first instance judgments in time and had only been informed of the judgments in October   2005, when the prosecutor's inquiry had been opened. On various dates the Novocherkassk Town Court allowed these applications. In particular, in case of Mr Turutin (no. 18952/06) the Novocherkassk Town Court on 20   December 2006 accepted the authority's argument that they had been unaware of the judgment, having found, in particular, as follows: “There is no evidence in the case materials to the effect that a copy of the judgment of 30 August 2004 ... had been sent to the Military Commissariat of the Rostov Region. It follows from the above that the [respondent commissariat] had a real opportunity to avail itself of its right to apply for supervisory review within one year.” 20.     The Town Court made similar findings in respect of thirty-two remaining cases. 21.     Enforcement of the unexecuted domestic judgments had been suspended pending the supervisory review. 22.     On various dates in 2005-2007 the Rostov Regional Court allowed the applications for supervisory review of the judgments lodged by the military commissariat of the Rostov Region and remitted the matter for examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court. 23.     On the dates specified in Annex I the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgments in the applicants' favour and remitted the cases for a fresh consideration. In each case the Presidium concluded that the first-instance court had erroneously applied the substantive law. They also found that the Novocherkassk Town Court had lacked territorial jurisdiction to examine the cases. The arrears were awarded against the Military Commissariat of the Rostov Region and thus the cases should have been examined by a court in the Oktiabrskiy District of Rostov-on-Don where the respondent commissariat was located. C.     Subsequent developments 24.     The cases were considered afresh by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don. 25.     According to the Government, Mr Karatayev (application no.   18352/06) modified the scope of his claim in the new round of the proceedings concerning the adjustment of his pension to the increase of the minimum wage. On 6 August 2007 The Oktyabrskiy District Court granted his action in full and ordered that he be paid 32,811.52 Russsian roubles (RUB). The judgment was executed. The parties did not submit copies of the respective statement of claims and judicial decision. 26.     As regards the remaining applicants, the court either discontinued the proceedings or dismissed the applicants' claims. The particulars of the respective proceedings are summarised in Annex I below. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.     Supervisory review and military pensions 27.     Under Article 376 of the Code of the Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation of 14 November 2002 (in force from 1 February 2003), judicial decisions that have become legally binding, with the exception of judicial decisions by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, may be appealed against to a court exercising supervisory review, by parties to the case and by other persons whose rights or legal interests have been adversely affected by the judicial decisions concerned (§ 1). Judicial decisions may be appealed against to a court exercising supervisory review within one year after they became legally binding (§ 2). By its ruling of 5   February 2007, the Constitutional Court interpreted Article 376 § 1 as allowing the above-mentioned persons to apply for supervisory review only after having exhausted all available ordinary appeals 28.     For the summary of other applicable provisions of the domestic law, see Murtazin v. Russia , no. 26338/06, §§ 14-18, 27 March 2008. B.     Jurisdiction 29.   Article 28 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a civil claim is to be filed with the court with territorial jurisdiction over the defendant's place of residence. A claim against the organisation is to be filed with the court having territorial jurisdiction over the organisation's residence. According to Article 31 § 1 of the Code, where a claim is filed against several defendants having different places of residence, a claim is to be lodged with a court having territorial jurisdiction over one of the defendants, upon the claimant's choice. C.     Succession 30.     Succession is regulated by Part 3 of the Civil Code. The succession includes the deceased's property or pecuniary rights or claims but does not include rights or obligations intrinsically linked to the deceased's person, such as alimony or a right to compensation for health damage (Article   1112). An heir should claim and accept succession, as well as obtain a succession certificate from a public notary (Articles 1152, 1162). The right to receive the amounts of salary and payments qualifying as such, pension and other amounts of money provided to the deceased person as means of subsistence which had been payable but had not been received in his lifetime shall belong to the members of the deceased's family who had been residing together with him and also his disabled dependants, irrespective of their having resided with the deceased or not (Article   1183   §   1). In accordance with section 63 of the Federal Law on Pension Welfare of Military Service Personnel (1993), as in force at the material time, the amount of pension due to a pensioner but not received in his lifetime shall belong to the members of the deceased's family if they were in charge of his or her funeral, and shall not be included in the succession. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 31.     Given that the eighty-seven applications at hand concern similar facts and complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to consider them in a single judgment. II.     LOCUS STANDI AS REGARDS APPLICATIONS Nos. 28888/06 AND 31419/06 32.     The Court notes firstly the fact of the death of Mr N.P. Zakharov, one of the applicants, and the wish of Mr V.N. Zakharov, his son, to pursue the proceedings he initiated. Likewise, it is noted that Mrs T.N. Melnikova expressed her wish to maintain the case of her late husband, Mr   N.N.   Melnikov, applicant in case no. 31419/06. A.     The parties' submissions 33.     With reference to the case of Belskiy v. Russia ((dec.), no.   23593/03,   26   November 2009) the Government submitted that neither Mr V.N. Zakharov nor Mrs T.N. Melnikova had standing to pursue the cases of their late relatives. The award in the applicants' favour was made in respect of the pension arrears. The pension rights were not transferable. Under the domestic law, the succession included the deceased's property or pecuniary rights or claims but did not include rights or obligations intrinsically linked to the deceased's person. The late applicants' relatives had not inherited the claim in respect of the judgment debt. Furthermore, the judgments had been annulled and thus no judgment debt existed at the moment of the applicants' death. Therefore, the applications should be struck out of the Court's list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. 34.     Mrs T.N. Melnikova and Mr V.N. Zakharov maintained their submissions arguing that they were entitled to claim unpaid pension arrears due to their late relatives in accordance with section 63 of the Federal Law on Pension Welfare of Military Service Personnel. Indeed, the pension arrears were awarded to the applicants and thus were payable, but the applicants had not received the respective sums in their lifetime. Mrs   T.N.   Melnikova and Mr V.N. Zakharov were in charge of the applicants' funeral. Thus, they had title to receive the unpaid pension. The fact that the judgments had been quashed did not have any impact on the standing issue. Accordingly, they had a legitimate interest to maintain the applications in their respective late relatives' stead. B.     The Court's assessment 35.     Article 37 § 1 of the Convention reads in the relevant part as follows: “1.     The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that ... (c)     for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires...” 1.     General principles 36.     The Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which an applicant has died in the course of the proceedings before the Court it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings, or the existence of a legitimate interest claimed by a person wishing to pursue the application (see Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no.   19324/02, §   43, ECHR   2009 ‑ ..., with further references). The Court interprets the concept of “victim” autonomously and irrespective of domestic concepts such as those concerning an interest or capacity to act ( see Micallef v. Malta [GC], no.   17056/06, § 48, ECHR 2009 ‑ ...; and Sanles Sanles v. Spain (dec.), no.   48335/99, ECHR 2000-XI). In this connection the Court has to consider whether or not the persons wishing to pursue the proceedings were the applicant's close relatives. Moreover, as a second criterion, the Court has to examine whether the rights concerned were transferable (see, mutatis mutandis , Vääri v. Estonia (dec.), no. 8702/04, 8   July   2008, and Stankevich v. Ukraine (dec.), no.   48814/07, 26 May 2009). It is for the heir who wishes to pursue the proceedings before the Court to substantiate his or her standing to do so (see, for example, Belskiy (dec.), cited above). 2.     Application to the present cases a.     Close kinship condition 37.     Turning to the two cases at hand, the Court observes first that, unlike in the Belskiy case (cited above), Mr. V.N. Zakharov and Mrs   T.N.   Melnikova submitted documents confirming that they were the applicants' close relatives. Furthermore, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the domestic law (see paragraph 30 above), they demonstrated that they had been in charge of the late applicants' funeral and could have claimed pension due to a pensioner but not received in his lifetime. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the condition of close kinship is met. b.     Transferability of the rights at stake 38.     As regards transferability of the rights, the Court observes that the applicants had raised complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement and subsequent quashing of the judgments in their favour. In the case of Sobelin and Others v. Russia (nos. 30672/03 et seq., §§ 43-45, 3 May 2007) concerning non-enforcement and subsequent quashing of the court judgments in the applicants' favour, the Court recognised the right of the relatives of the deceased applicant to pursue the application. The rights at stake in the present two cases are very similar to those at the heart of the Sobelin and others case. However, unlike in the aforementioned precedent, in the two cases at hand the Government objected to transferability of the rights at stake. The Court accordingly considers it necessary to examine this issue in more detail. 39.     Insofar as the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are concerned, the Court on several occasions continued the examination of cases involving pecuniary claims that were transferable to the deceased applicant's heirs (see, for example, Nerva and Others v.   the   United   Kingdom , no.   42295/98, § 33, ECHR 2002-VIII). The Court has previously noted that the question whether such claims were transferable to the persons seeking to pursue an application was an important criterion, but could not be the only one (see, mutatis mutandis , OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya YUKOS v. Russia (dec.), no.   14902/04, §   441, 29 January 2009). In fact, cases before the Court generally also have a moral dimension and persons close to an applicant may have a legitimate interest in seeing that justice is done even after the applicant's death (ibid). There is nothing in the cases at hand to justify a departure from this approach. The Court accordingly finds that Mr V.N. Zakharov and Mrs   T.N.   Melnikova have standing to pursue the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in place of their late relatives. 40.     However, as regards Article 6, the Court does not exclude that the situation might in principle be different. In fact, the Court has previously accepted that the late applicants' close relatives could maintain applications with complaints concerning various aspects of Article 6 of the Convention (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, § 1, 12 July 2001, with further references; Andreyeva v. Russia (dec.), no.   76737/01, 16   October 2003; Shiryayeva v. Russia , no. 21417/04, §   8, 13 July 2006, concerning the non-enforcement of the domestic judgment; see also Horváthová v. Slovakia , no.   74456/01, § 26, 17   May 2005, in the context of the length of proceedings). However, the Court attaches particular weight to the specific aspect of the “right to a court” at stake in the present two cases, namely the alleged impairment of the principle of legal certainty as a result of the annulment of the domestic judgments in the applicants' favour by way of the supervisory review proceedings. The quashing in the instant cases had occurred before the applicants had passed away. The crux of the grievance under Article 6 was, in fact, frustration of the applicants' reliance on the binding judicial decision. The Court reiterates that quashing of a final judgment is an instantaneous act and does not create a continuing situation (see, mutatis mutandis , Sardin v. Russia (dec.), no. 69582/01, ECHR   2004 ‑ II). In these circumstances, the Court may admittedly have difficulties in finding that the applicant's relatives were affected by the quashing and accepts that the legal certainty complaint under Article 6 in the context of the supervisory-review proceedings, if raised separately, might not be automatically considered transferable (compare, mutatis mutandis , Stankevich , cited above ; Gorodnichev v. Russia (dec.), no.   32275/03, 15   November 2007; Biç and Others , cited above, § 22; and Georgia Makri and Others v. Greece (dec.), no. 5977/03, 24 March 2005). 41.     On the other hand, the Court notes that in the present case the supervisory-review complaint is closely related to the non-enforcement grievance under Article 6. It recalls that the principles insisting that a final judicial decision must not be called into question and should be enforced represent two aspects of the same general concept, namely the “right to a court” (see, for instance, Sobelin and Others , cited above, § 67). The Court has been prepared to recognise the standing of a relative as regards the non-enforcement complaints (see, among others, Shiryayeva, cited above). Furthermore, the supervisory-review complaints under Article 6 and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 are closely interrelated, and it has already accepted the relatives' standing as regards the complaint under the latter provision of the Convention. In view of the above, the Court does not consider it necessary to draw a distinction between two aspects of the supervisory-review complaint for the purposes of determination of the standing issue. It finds that Mr V.N. Zakharov and Mrs   T.N. Melnikova have standing to pursue their late relatives' complaints under Article 6. c.     Conclusion 42.     In view of the above, and having particular regard to the close interrelation of the complaints in the present case, the Court considers that Mr V.N. Zakharov and Mrs T.N. Melnikova have a legitimate interest in pursuing the complaints in place of their late relatives in cases nos.   28888/06 and 31419/06, respectively. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No.   1 ON ACCOUNT OF SUPERVISORY REVIEW 43.     The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the quashing of the binding judgments in their favour was unjustified, as well as about various defects of the supervisory-review proceedings. 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.     The parties' submissions 1.     The Government 44.     The Government argued that the quashing had been in accordance with the domestic law of civil procedure. The supervisory review had been justified, because it aimed at remedying a fundamental error in interpretation of the material law by the lower courts. In particular, the Novocherkassk Town Court had wrongly applied the index-linking coefficient for the applicants' pensions and incorrectly determined the amount of the food allowance. Unlike in the case of Maltseva v. Russia (no.   76676/01, §§ 35-36, 19 June 2008), where the domestic judgment had been quashed because the lower court incorrectly determined the pension coefficient to be applied, in the present cases the first instance courts manifestly failed to apply the amount of the food allowance specified in the domestic law and thus abused their power. Furthermore, the Novocherkassk Town Court had not had territorial jurisdiction over the applicants' claims. Therefore, the previous proceedings had been tarnished by a fundamental defect (see Luchkina v. Russia , no. 3548/04, § 21, 10 April 2008). In Trukhanov (no. 30481/06) they argued that judge A. who had issued the first instance judgments had been dismissed, and so were several officials from the respondent commissariat. Therefore, the authorities had taken all necessary measures to eliminate potential negative consequences “of the malicious actions of the above judge”. They further pointed out that the judge had delivered more than two hundred similar judgments, including those in the applicants' favour, during only two days, 30 August and 15   September 2004. Such important amount of cases examined within a manifestly short period of time, taken alone, was capable of raising doubts as to the fairness of the proceedings at the first instance. 45.     Regarding the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, they acknowledged that there had been an interference with the applicants' right to property as a result of the quashing, but it was justified, since it was in accordance with law and in the general interest. The initial domestic judgments were delivered in violation of the domestic laws of procedure. A failure to annul such judgments would have undermined the trust to the domestic judicial system and caused social tensions between the individuals whose similar claims were rejected and those whose claims were unlawfully granted. 2.     The applicants 46.     The applicants maintained their complaint. They argued that the first instance court's judgments were lawful and did not contain a fundamental error. The Novocherkassk Town Court did not violate the jurisdiction rules. Some applicants pointed out that the respondent authority had failed to lodge ordinary appeals against the disputed judgments, and proceeded directly with an application for the extraordinary remedy, such as supervisory review, in violation of the applicants' right to a court. B.     The Court's assessment 1.     Admissibility 47.     As regards the objection raised in the Trukhanov case, and insofar as the Government may be understood as arguing that the applicant in the above case has lost his victim status, the Court notes that they had not submitted any documents related to the grounds of the judge's dismissal. In any event, there is nothing in the case materials to enable a conclusion that the dismissal constituted either acknowledgment or redress of the alleged violation. The objection must accordingly be dismissed. 48.   The Court further notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 2.     Merits a.     Article 6 of the Convention i.     Supervisory review: legal certainty 49.     The Court reiterates that the quashing by way of supervisory review of a judicial decision which has become final and binding may render the litigant's right to a court illusory and infringe the principle of legal certainty (see, among many other authorities, Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], no.   28342/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-VII; Ryabykh v. Russia , no. 52854/99, §§   56-58, 24 July 2003). In certain circumstances legal certainty can be disturbed in order to correct a “fundamental defect” or a “miscarriage of justice”.     Departures from that principle are justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see Kot v. Russia , no. 20887/03, § 24, 18 January 2007, and Protsenko v.   Russia , no. 13151/04, §§ 25-34, 31 July 2008; and Tishkevich v. Russia , no. 2202/05, §§ 25-26, 4 December 2008). In such cases, the Court has to assess, in particular, whether a fair balance was struck between the interests of the applicants and the need to ensure the proper administration of justice, which includes the importance of observing the principle of legal certainty (see, mutatis mutandis , Kurinnyy v. Russia , no. 36495/02, §§   13, 27-28, 12   June 2008). 50.     As regards the Government's argument about an allegedly incorrect application of the substantive law, the Court reiterates its constant approach that in the absence of a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings a party's disagreement with the assessment made by the lower courts is not a circumstance of a substantial and compelling character warranting the quashing of a binding and enforceable judgment and re-opening of the proceedings on the applicant's claim (see Dovguchits v. Russia , no.   2999/03, § 30, 7 June 2007; and Kot , cited above, § 29). As concerns the Government's submission about initial unfairness of the proceedings based on the fact that the absolute majority of the domestic judgments were issued within only two days, nothing suggests that this consideration constituted a ground for the quashing. Such argument was only advanced in the Government's observations. In the absence of any reference to the ground for quashing cited by the Government in the texts of the supervisory ‑ instance rulings, the Court rejects the Government's argument. 51.     On the other hand, the Court notes the Government's submission as regards the violation of the jurisdictional rules in the domestic proceedings. As they correctly pointed out, a jurisdictional error or a serious breach of court may, in principle, be regarded as a fundamental defect and therefore justify the quashing (see, among others, Luchkina, cited above). 52.     First, the Court notes the Presidium reasoning that the claims directed against the Military Commissariat of the Rostov Region should have been introduced before a district court in Rostov. At the same time, the Court observes that the initial claims in all cases were, in fact, made against two distinct authorities with different legal addresses, namely the Town and Regional Military Commissariats, and the action against the Town Commissariat had been subsequently rejected as unfounded. It appears that according to Article 31 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, such claim could have been lodged with a court having territorial jurisdiction over one of the defendants, upon the claimant's choice, inter alia , with the Novocherkassk Town Court. The Court reiterates its constant approach to the effect that it is primarily for the domestic courts to interpret and apply the domestic law, including the law of procedure. Nevertheless, the Court observes that the Presidium, when quashing the judgments, did not cite any reason as to why the provisions of Article 31 of the CCP did not apply to the applicants' cases. 53.     Second, the Court observes that the purported defects in the present group of similar cases could have been cured in the appeal proceedings. A situation where the final judgments in the applicants' favour was called into question could have been avoided, had the military commissariat lodged an ordinary appeal within the statutory ten-day time-limit (see Borshchevskiy v.   Russia , no. 14853/03, § 48, 21 September 2006, and Nelyubin v. Russia , no. 14502/04, § 27, 2 November 2006). The Government did not point to any exceptional circumstances that would have prevented the military commissariat from making use of an ordinary appeal in good time (see, in identical context, Zvezdin v. Russia , no. 25448/06, §§ 30-32, 14 June 2007, and Murtazin , cited above, §§ 27-29). Furthermore, it appears that in several cases the regional commissariat had timeously appealed against the judgments, but then revoked the grounds of appeal. Moreover, the Court notes that the military commissariat had failed to apply for an extension of the time-limit for lodging of the ordinary appeal against the judgments, but chose to make use of the extraordinary remedy, such as the supervisory review. 54.     Third, the Court does not lose sight of the fact that the applications for the supervisory review of more than thirty domestic judgments had been introduced by the respondent authority outside the one-year time-limit set out in the domestic law (see paragraph 19 above). No justification for that had been advanced by the Government. It is true that the domestic courts granted the extension of the respective time-limit on the ground that the respondent commissariat had not been timeously informed of the proceedings against it. Being sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role, the Court nevertheless is not bound by the findings of domestic courts and may depart from them where this is rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for instance, Novikov v. Russia , no.   35989/02, § 38, June 2009, and Khamidov v. Russia , no. 72118/01, §   135 et seq., ECHR 2007-XIII (extracts)). The Court notes, in particular, the Government's observation that in September-October 2004 thirty-three applicants had submitted the writs of execution directly to the respondent authority, and the latter had received them. It also notes, and it is uncontested between the parties, that the authority attempted to appeal against several first instance judgments, but then revoked the respective applications without referring to a specific reason. In these circumstances, the Court is not convinced that the respondent authority was genuinely unaware of the proceedings before the first instance court (see, by contrast, Podrugina and Yedinov v. Russia (dec.), no. 39654/07, 17 February 2009). 55.     In view of the above, the Court is not satisfied that a fair balance between the interests of the applicants and the need to ensure the proper administration of justice was ensured. The Court agrees that, as a matter of principle, the rules of jurisdiction should be respected. However, in the specific circumstances of the present eighty-seven cases the Court does not detect a specific reason which would justify the departure from the principle of legal certainty (see, mutatis mutandis , Sutyazhnik v. Russia , no. 8269/02, § 39, 23 July 2009), in particular, given that the respondent authority did not make use of the ordinary remedy in due time. 56.     The Court finds that, by granting the military commissariat's request to set aside the final domestic judgments in the applicants' favour listed in Parts A and B of Annex I, the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court infringed the principle of legal certainty and the applicants' “right to a court” under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. There has accordingly been a violation of that Article in the eighty-seven cases at hand. ii.     Supervisory review: procedural issues 57.     With regard to the complaint about the procedural defects of the hearing before