CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 juillet 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   558 09.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT TARNOPOLSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Tarnopolskaya and Others v. Russia (application 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). These applications concerned the quashing of the final judgments delivered in favour of the applicants concerning the continuous payment of their old-age pensions after their emigration from Russia.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights and a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, on account of the quashing during the supervisory review proceedings of binding and enforceable judgments delivered in the applicants’ favour.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants sums ranging between 51 and 17,421   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 to each applicant for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in English .)   1.     Principal facts   In the 1980s and 1990s the 20 applicants in this case emigrated from the USSR (Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics) to Israel where they obtained Israeli nationality. When they emigrated, the old-age pensions they were receiving from the Soviet authorities were discontinued.   In 2000 the applicants applied unsuccessfully to the regional departments of the Pension Fund of Russia for the payment of their pensions to be restored, following which they brought civil proceedings against the Pension Fund. Their claims were allowed and final judgments were delivered in their favour.   The Pension Fund restored the pensions in ten cases. At a later stage, however, the Fund lodged requests with the respective regional courts for supervisory review of the final judgments in the applicants’ favour referring to a lack of coherence in the approach followed by the different regional courts on the matter. The Presidia, a special composition of the courts acting as a higher instance regional courts, granted the requests of the Pension Fund as according to their interpretation of the relevant domestic legislation there was no basis under domestic law for the payments to be awarded to the applicants; as a result the judgments were quashed and the applicants’ claims dismissed.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on different dates, all of which appear in an appended to the judgment table, and were examined for admissibility and merits together.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar ,   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article   6   §   1 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, the applicants complained about the quashing through the supervisory review procedure of the binding and enforceable judgments in their favour between 2005 and 2007.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1   The Court noted that the higher courts had quashed the final judgments solely on the grounds of alleged misinterpretation by the lower courts of the relevant domestic law. Referring to its constant case law on the matter, the Court recalled that the disagreement of higher courts with the reasoning advanced by lower courts could not be considered, in itself, an exceptional circumstance giving a reason for the reopening of proceedings in which final judgments had been delivered. Accordingly, there had not been any justification for the overturning of the final judgments in the applicants’ favour, and there had therefore been a violation of Article   6   §   1.   Article 1 of Protocol No 1   The Court observed that the final judgments in the applicants’ favour had unconditionally ordered the Pension Fund to restore the pension payments which had been made earlier. Thus, the judgments had created assets for the applicants; the subsequent quashing of the judgments therefore had deprived the applicants of the opportunity to receive the sums awarded to them by the courts. There had therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol   No 1.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.