Подборка материалов "Обзоры постановлений Европейского суда по правам человека"
17.10.2009
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF GONCHAROVA AND OTHERS
and 68 other "Privileged pensioners" cases v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 23113/08, 23123/08, 23130/08, 23137/08, 23143/08,
23146/08, 23149/08, 23157/08, 33921/08, 35054/08, 35068/08, 35073/08,
35130/08, 35189/08, 35194/08, 35197/08, 35222/08, 35234/08, 35244/08,
35249/08, 35255/08, 35257/08, 37978/08, 38012/08, 38130/08, 38147/08,
38152/08, 41789/08, 41791/08, 41792/08, 41793/08, 41797/08, 41801/08,
41811/08, 41812/08, 41813/08, 41816/08, 41818/08, 41831/08, 41878/08,
41882/08, 41885/08, 41887/08, 41889/08, 41892/08, 41894/08, 41898/08,
41908/08, 41909/08, 41915/08, 41918/08, 41980/08, 41983/08, 41987/08,
41989/08, 41994/08, 41998/08, 42008/08, 42010/08, 42013/08, 42015/08,
42016/08, 42018/08, 42020/08, 42021/08, 42022/08, 42023/08, 42024/08
and 42025/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 October 2009
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in
Article 44 S: 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Goncharova and Others and 68 other "Privileged
pensioners" cases v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vaji,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Andr Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 September 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in 69 applications (nos. 23113/08, 23123/08,
23130/08, 23137/08, 23143/08, 23146/08, 23149/08, 23157/08, 33921/08,
35054/08, 35068/08, 35073/08, 35130/08, 35189/08, 35194/08, 35197/08,
35222/08, 35234/08, 35244/08, 35249/08, 35255/08, 35257/08, 37978/08,
38012/08, 38130/08, 38147/08, 38152/08, 41789/08, 41791/08, 41792/08,
41793/08, 41797/08, 41801/08, 41811/08, 41812/08, 41813/08, 41816/08,
41818/08, 41831/08, 41878/08, 41882/08, 41885/08, 41887/08, 41889/08,
41892/08, 41894/08, 41898/08, 41908/08, 41909/08, 41915/08, 41918/08,
41980/08, 41983/08, 41987/08, 41989/08, 41994/08, 41998/08, 42008/08,
42010/08, 42013/08, 42015/08, 42016/08, 42018/08, 42020/08, 42021/08,
42022/08, 42023/08, 42024/08 and 42025/08) 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 109 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.
2. In the course of the proceedings applicants Vladimir Nikolayevich
Yeremin and Igor Mikhaylovich Semyonov died, and their relatives
adopted the applications.
3. The applicants were represented by Mr M. Antonov, Mr I. Fedotov,
Mr V. Glukhov, Ms O. Gurova, Mr G. Migay, Mr. Y. Pakin, and
Ms L. Yerokhina, 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.
4. In July-October 2008 the President of the First Section decided to
give notice of the applications to the Government. It was also decided
to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their
admissibility (Article 29 S: 3). The Government objected to the joint
examination of the admissibility and merits, but the Court rejected
this objection.
THE FACTS^
5. The applicants are pensioners who live in the Moscow Region.
Before retirement they used to work in hazardous industry. They had a
dispute with a pension authority about the scope of their privileged
pensions and appealed to the Region's district and town courts.
6. In March-November 2006 the courts held for the applicants and
ordered the pension authority to recalculate the pensions. The courts
based their finding on the Law on Labour Pensions. In May
2006-February 2007 these judgments became binding and were executed.
7. On the pension authority's request, in October 2007-March 2008 the
district and 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.
8. The applicants' cases were remitted for a rehearing and eventually
dismissed.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
9. In view of the similarity of the applications in terms of both
fact and law, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 S: 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
10. 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 S: 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
11. The Government argued that the applications were inadmissible.
The Supreme Court's interpretations of the Law on Labour Pensions
revealed fundamental errors in the district and 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 was aimed at a uniform and coherent
functioning of the State pension scheme.
12. The applicants argued that their applications were admissible.
The quashing had been unjustified because the district and 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.
13. The Court notes that the applications are not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 S: 3 of the Convention.
It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds.
They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
14. 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, S:S: 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, S:S:
27-34, 18 November 2004).
15. In the case at hand, 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, S: 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 Court's
judgments, it did not justify the quashing either (see Yerogova, cited
above, S: 33).
16. It follows that the quashing of the applicants' judgments was
unjustified, and that there has, accordingly, been a violation of
Article 6 S: 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
17. 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
18. In respect of pecuniary damage, the applicants claimed sums
ranging from 384 euros (EUR) to EUR 10,447. 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 in their lifetime if there had been no quashing. The
Government contested the applicants' method of calculation as having
no basis in domestic law. They stressed that before their quashing,
the judgments had been duly enforced.
19. 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, S: 51, 9 July 2009).
20. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the applicants claimed sums
ranging from EUR 2,000 to EUR 10,000. The Government contested this
claim as ill-founded.
21. In respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court, the
applicants claimed sums ranging from EUR 4 to EUR 1,640. The
Government noted that any possible award should cover only proven
expenses.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. In view of the above, making its assessment on equitable and
reasonable bases, the Court awards each applicant EUR 2,000 in respect
of non-pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses.
B. Default interest
25. 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
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 S: 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay each applicant or his or her
estate, within three months from the date on which the judgment
becomes final in accordance with Article 44 S: 2 of the Convention,
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;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claims for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 October 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 S:S: 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Andr Wampach Christos Rozakis
Deputy Registrar President
A N N E X
Application no.
Introduced on
Name of Applicant
Born in
Judgment of
Binding on
Quashed on
23113/08
08/05/08
Goncharova Lyudmila Anatolyevna
1955
25/05/06
18/07/06
14/11/07
Kazakova Galina Mikhaylovna
1953
25/05/06
18/07/06
14/11/07
Larina Larisa Mikhaylovna
1956
25/05/06
18/07/06
14/11/07
Ryazanova Galina Ivanovna
1952
25/05/06
18/07/06
14/11/07
Sergeenko Galina Viktorovna
1947
25/05/06
18/07/06
14/11/07
Eleyev Aleksandr Fyodorovich
1952
25/05/06
18/07/06
14/11/07
23123/08
08/05/08
Gavrichenko Tatyana Vasilyevna
1954
25/08/06
08/12/06
24/12/07
23130/08
07/05/08
Zhuravlev Konstantin Ivanovich
1935
28/07/06
01/09/06
12/11/07
Zhuravleva Sofya Nikolayevna
1935
28/07/06
01/09/06
12/11/07
Chuban Lyudmila Petrovna
1954
28/07/06
01/09/06
12/11/07
Savina Olga Aleksandrovna
1955
28/07/06
01/09/06
12/11/07
23137/08
30/04/08
Zamystskaya Lyudmila Petrovna
1950
05/07/06
18/07/06
12/11/07
23143/08
08/05/08
Zemzyulina Kira Aleksandrovna
1952
16/07/06
26/06/06
12/11/07
23146/08
10/05/08
Lisovskaya Raisa Georgiyevna
1945
04/08/06
08/12/06
26/11/07
23149/08
08/05/08
Pevneva Vera Yegorovna
1946
25/08/06
08/12/06
23/01/08
23157/08
08/05/08
Sizova Yevdokiya Andreyevna
1957
07/08/06
22/09/06
04/12/07
33921/08
20/06/08
Yerokhina Lyudmila Aleksandrovna
1946
13/09/06
28/12/06
26/02/08
35054/08
16/05/08
Vorobyeva Tatyana Nikolayevna
1959
14/08/06
08/12/06
28/11/07
Gendina Natalya Vasilyevna
1958
14/08/06
08/12/06
28/11/07
Rukhova Antonina Yakovlevna
1953
14/08/06
08/12/06
28/11/07
Stolyarova Tatyana Galyevna
1947
14/08/06
08/12/06
28/11/07
Chuvatkina Valentina Nikolayevna
1927
14/08/06
08/12/06
28/11/07
Sherkunova Lidiya Ivanovna
1951
14/08/06
08/12/06
28/11/07
Zharkina Alla Alekseyevna
1949
14/08/06
08/12/06
28/11/07
35068/08
17/05/08
Kuznetsova Galina Nikolayevna
1956
16/03/06
10/05/06
20/11/07
Platonova Larisa Viktorovna
1951
16/03/06
10/05/06
20/11/07
35073/08
17/05/08
Lyubimkina Tatyana Terentyevna
1948
12/07/06
25/07/06
20/11/07
Myasoyedova Lyudmila Sergeyevna
1950
12/07/06
25/07/06
20/11/07
Trusova Zinaida Vasilyevna
1945
12/07/06
25/07/06
20/11/07
35130/08
17/05/08
Antipov Valeriy Pavlovich
1951
21/06/06
26/10/06
29/11/07
Belyayeva Nina Mikhaylovna
1920
21/06/06
26/10/06
29/11/07
Bodatkov Aleksey Vladimirovich
1947
21/06/06
26/10/06
29/11/07
Yeremin Vladimir Nikolayevich
1952
21/06/06
26/10/06
29/11/07
Zemzyulin Yuriy Dmitriyevich
1953
21/06/06
26/10/06
29/11/07
Luchkina Marina Borisovna
1959
21/06/06
26/10/06
29/11/07
Rusakova Galina Ivanovna
1955
21/06/06
26/10/06
29/11/07
Sklokin Anatoliy Grigoryevich
1946
21/06/06
26/10/06
29/11/07
35189/08
17/05/08
Alshina Nadezhda Vasilyevna
1953
07/08/06
22/09/06
22/11/07
Makeyeva Natalya Aleksandrovna
1952
07/08/06
22/09/06
22/11/07
35194/08
17/05/08
Avercheva Tatyana Yuyryevna
1946
25/08/06
08/12/06
24/12/07
35197/08
17/05/08
Krasnikova Tatyana Nikolayevna
1949
05/06/06
04/08/06
20/11/07
Nesterov Viktor Borisovich
1955
05/06/06
04/08/06
20/11/07
Nesterova Irina Yevgenyevna
1954
05/06/06
04/08/06
20/11/07
Savchenkova Galina Serafimovna
1937
05/06/06
04/08/06
20/11/07
Vorobyeva Valentina Nikolayevna
1950
05/06/06
04/08/06
20/11/07
Lezhenin Vyacheslav Ivanovich
1949
05/06/06
04/08/06
20/11/07
Pyrkova Lyudmila Mikhaylovna
1956
05/06/06
04/08/06
20/11/07
Babarina Lyubov Ivanovna
1929
05/06/06
04/08/06
20/11/07
Babarina Tatyana Viktorovna
1957
05/06/06
04/08/06
20/11/07
Saprykin Anatoliy Nikolayevich
1950
05/06/06
04/08/06
20/11/07
Chernushkina Nadezhda Konstantinovna
1952
05/06/06
04/08/06
20/11/07
35222/08
17/05/08
Smirnova Olga Lvovna
1956
30/05/06
20/07/06
21/11/07
Golovan Vera Mikhaylovna
1958
30/05/06
20/07/06
21/11/07
Igolnikova Natalya Kirillovna
1954
30/05/06
20/07/06
21/11/07
Semenov Aleksandr Mikhaylovich
1942
30/05/06
20/07/06
21/11/07
Semenova Lyubov Ivanovna
1959
30/05/06
20/07/06
21/11/07
Semenov Igor Mikhaylovich
1923
30/05/06
20/07/06
21/11/07
35234/08
25/06/08
Zezegov Vladimir Alekseyevich
1936
20/11/06
02/02/07
04/03/08
35244/08
01/07/08
Subbotina Tamara Pavlovna
1944
16/08/06
08/12/06
24/01/08
35249/08
03/06/08
Kemenova Galina Ivanovna
1954
21/08/06
10/11/06
14/01/08
35255/08
05/04/08
Bykova Lyudmila Mikhaylovna
1942
31/05/06
04/08/06
23/10/07
35257/08
21/06/08
Sidorova Tatyana Nikolayevna
1955
12/10/06
21/12/06
21/02/08
37978/08
01/07/08
Medvedeva Kavsaria Khabriyevna
1929
28/09/06
21/12/06
05/02/08
38012/08
17/06/08
Lebedeva Nadezhda Trifonovna
1950
25/08/06
08/12/06
24/12/07
38130/08
08/07/08
Korobova Roza Aleksandrovna
1939
16/08/06
08/12/06
21/03/08
38147/08
03/07/08
Malyshkina Antonina Mikhaylovna
1932
28/09/06
21/12/06
05/02/08
38152/08
18/07/08
Trifonov Aleksey Alekseyevich
1951
29/09/06
02/02/07
20/02/08
41789/08
07/07/08
Pakin Yuriy Gennadiyevich
1945
28/09/06
06/12/06
24/01/08
41791/08
15/07/08
Smirnova Tatyana Dmitriyevna
1953
21/09/06
28/12/06
12/02/08
41792/08
01/07/08
Samsonova Nina Dmitriyevna
1934
04/09/06
28/12/06
11/01/08
41793/08
04/07/08
Ivashkin Nikolay Vasilyevich
1951
16/08/06
08/12/06
06/02/08
41797/08
04/07/08
Ivashkina Tatyana Aleksandrovna
1947
16/08/06
08/12/06
18/01/08
41801/08
17/06/08
Yevdokimova Maria Andreyevna
1930
25/08/06
18/10/06
13/02/08
41811/08
11/07/08
Lavrenov Nikolay Yegorovich
1944
01/06/06
28/12/06
12/02/08
41812/08
03/06/08
Melnikova Aleksandra Fyodorovna
1938
31/07/06
26/10/06
24/12/07
41813/08
24/06/08
Makarova Faina Mikhaylovna
1935
11/10/06
21/12/06
13/03/08
41816/08
14/07/08
Tyrtova Vera Konstantinovna
1958
13/11/06
28/12/06
28/01/08
41818/08
09/07/08
Aleksandrov Yuriy Ivanovich
1945
15/11/06
02/02/07
27/03/08
41831/08
25/06/08
Vasyunin Viktor Nikolayevich
1950
08/09/06
28/12/06
22/02/08
41878/08
13/08/08
Khakimov Boris Aisovich
1929
16/11/06
02/02/07
25/03/08
41882/08
13/08/08
Ukolova Tatyana Alekseyevna
1933
16/10/06
21/12/06
17/03/08
41885/08
11/07/08
Malyshkin Vladimir Ivanovich
1954
28/09/06
21/12/06
11/03/08
41887/08
30/07/08
Pimenova Vera Viktorovna
1944
19/10/06
21/12/06
28/03/08
41889/08
02/08/08
Bernikova Zoya Prokhorovna
1925
13/11/06
26/01/07
28/03/08
41892/08
27/06/08
Khismatulin Munir Khalilovich
1941
21/09/06
28/12/06
12/02/08
41894/08
09/07/08
Sesin Pyotr Grigoryevich
1937
25/09/06
28/12/06
24/01/08
41898/08
11/07/08
Matyukhina Lyubov Pavlovna
1954
30/10/06
28/12/06
31/03/08
41908/08
29/07/08
Savina Alla Mikhaylovna
1932
28/09/06
21/12/06
05/02/08
41909/08
30/07/08
Savin Viktor Petrovich
1933
28/09/06
28/12/06
19/02/08
41915/08
08/08/08
Gerasimova Tatyana Zinovyevna
1947
05/10/06
08/12/06
14/02/08
41918/08
06/08/08
Gusarova Tatyana Ivanovna
1959
17/10/06
21/12/06
28/03/08
41980/08
02/07/08
Shatilova Maria Aleksandrovna
1952
06/10/06
28/12/06
28/02/08
41983/08
17/07/08
Kuznetsova Klavdia Dmitriyevna
1925
20/10/06
21/12/06
23/01/08
41987/08
23/07/08
Yegorshina Yevgeniya Ivanovna
1928
11/09/06
08/12/06
25/03/08
41989/08
16/07/08
Teselkina Anna Yakovlevna
1948
09/10/06
21/12/06
31/03/08
41994/08
16/07/08
Teselkin Ivan Ivanovich
1944
09/10/06
21/12/06
31/03/08
41998/08
31/07/08
Malgina Zoya Sergeyevna
1952
17/10/06
21/12/06
31/03/08
42008/08
22/07/08
Popova Anna Antonovna
1934
15/09/06
28/12/06
31/03/08
42010/08
24/07/08
Shmeleva Nina Pavlovna
1927
17/11/06
28/12/06
31/03/08
42013/08
23/07/08
Spiridonova Rimma Khuzamkhitovna
1938
17/11/06
28/12/06
31/03/08
42015/08
05/08/08
Yermakov Vasiliy Sergeevich
1931
28/09/06
21/12/06
21/02/08
42016/08
30/07/08
Susaykova Natalya Ivanovna
1949
14/09/06
28/12/06
26/03/08
42018/08
09/08/08
Ivankova Natalya Mikhaylovna
1951
29/09/06
28/12/06
28/02/08
42020/08
13/08/08
Fortova Pelageya Sergeyevna
1940
30/10/06
21/12/06
25/03/08
42021/08
13/08/08
Yefimenko Zinaida Timofeyevna
1942
15/10/06
28/12/06
26/03/08
42022/08
29/07/08
Protasova Irina Igorevna
1952
14/09/06
28/12/06
26/03/08
42023/08
08/08/08
Morozova Valentina Vasilyevna
1942
13/10/06
21/12/06
05/03/08
42024/08
29/07/08
Kazantseva Neolinna Ivanovna
1940
30/10/06
21/12/06
26/03/08
42025/08
29/07/08
Bokov Yuriy Stepanovich
1945
09/10/06
21/12/06
27/02/08
^. Factual details concerning individual applications are given in the
Annex.
1 GONCHAROVA AND OTHERS AND 68 OTHER "PRIVILEGED PENSIONERS" CASES
v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
GONCHAROVA AND OTHERS AND 68 OTHER "PRIVILEGED PENSIONERS" CASES 1
v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
1. Anonymous - 20.10.2009 08:33:28
Пожалуй, самое интересное - это трактовка "вновь открытых обстоятельств". Оказывается, что они должны существовать в период суда, а не вновь открываться после него. Они также должны быть скрыты от суда. Только в этом случае такие обстоятельства заслуживают правового уважения и реагирования. Похоже, российское судопроизводство понимает это не так, как ЕСПЧ. Конечно, хорошо, что ЕСПЧ учит российских судей принципу "правовой определенности". Но плохо, что ЕСПЧ фактически уклоняется от правовой оценки материальной сути исков жалобщиков, опираясь лишь на процессуальные огрехи. Плохо также и то, что такое решение не дает адвокатам прямого оружия для отмены неправедных решений вышестоящих российских судов. Им еще придется много повоевать в России, чтобы позиция ЕСПЧ была там воспринята как опровергающая окончательно подобные "суждения".
2. borlando - 18.01.2010 14:32:01
E-mail: u_studenta@mail.ru
на Русском хочу!
3. Anonymous - 19.01.2010 08:02:23
Прошу прощения за вопрос, но мне не понятно, какая связь между п.1 ст.6 Конвенции и принципом правовой определенности?? Однажды в комментариях уже вроде разобрались, что этот принцип означает. А что означает п.1 ст.6 Конвенции, кроме простой декларации? Что касается применения ЕСПЧ ст.1 Протокола №1, то это намек на то, что пенсия - это собственность пенсионера? Если ЕСПЧ так понимает существо пенсии, то из такого понимания вытекают весьма далеко идущие выводы в смысле гражданского законодательства, до которых российскме суды еще не доросли. Интересно, интерпретируют ли российские правозащитники пенсионеров их пенсии как их собственность?
Что касается даваемого ЕСПЧ понятия "вновь открывшиеся обстоятельства", то оно весьма сомнительно по логической основе судебного решения. Одно дело - обстоятельства, неожиданно для сторон и судей возникшие после принятия решения. В этом случае, на мой взгляд, просто начинается новое дело, процессуально никак не связаное с предыдущим. ЕСПЧ же говорит об обстоятельствах, известных, но скрытых, т.е. кому-то из сторон заведомо известных, от суда, то когда они раскрываются, следует, на мой взгляд, пересматривать уже принятые решения. Короче, моя позиция полностью противоположна позиции ЕСПЧ. Поэтому ЕСПЧ следовало упрекать суды России не в пересмотре уже принятых решений, а в том, что открывшиеся обстоятельства (новая интерпретация)не исследовались с помощью нового дела. Что же касается отказа ЕСПЧ рассматривать дела с материальной точки зрения, то это есть весьма большой фундаментальный дефект, определение которого ЕСПЧ так и не дает. А стоило бы дать.
4. Anonymous - 26.02.2010 17:48:49
E-mail: neksikan1979@tandex.ru
Мне 54 года,из них я лично и моя жена 12 лет судимся с ОПФ РФ и просто жизненно необходим русский текст,так как до 15 марта 2010г. необходимо подать в ЕСЧП жалобу(кончается срок подачи в 6 мес).Мы северяне-досрочники и уже дважды нам отказывал ЕСЧП из-за ошибок при оформлении жалобы(в2005г.и2006г).Обидно что может рядом помощь а прочитать нельзя.Сутяжник-помоги!!
5. Anonymous - 27.02.2010 08:19:38
Еще раз прошу ЕСПЧ экспертов Сутажника ответить на вопрос:какая связь между п.1 ст.6 Конвенции и принципом правовой определенности??
6. Anonymous - 27.02.2010 10:29:07
читайте в этой книге http://sutyajnik.ru/rus/library/sborniki/echr2/index.html
Добавить комментарий: