GONCHAROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 23113/08 [2009] ECHR 1550 (15 October 2009)

GONCHAROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 23113/08 [2009] ECHR 1550 (15 October 2009)

The quashing of the applicants' binding judgments was not justified by the cited legal interpretations, as they either predated the judgments and were considered, or postdated them and thus could not constitute newly-discovered circumstances. This violated Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] ECHR 1550
Parties
Applicant: Goncharova and Others (and 68 other 'Privileged pensioners'); Respondent: Russian Federation
Jurisdiction
European Union
Procedural Posture
European Court of Human Rights Application (joined Cases) / Judgment on Merits and Admissibility
Outcome
Violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 found; applications admissible; just satisfaction awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs; remainder of claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Right to a Fair Trial, Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions, Legal Certainty, Quashing of Final Judgments, Pensions
Human Rights Law Social Security Law Right to a Fair Trial Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions Legal Certainty Quashing of Final Judgments Pensions

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goncharova and Others (and 68 other 'Privileged pensioners')

Applicant

Russian Federation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

European Court of Human Rights Application (joined Cases) / Judgment on Merits and Admissibility

  1. 1 Whether the quashing of binding judgments awarding privileged pensions violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)

Ratio Decidendi

The quashing of the applicants' binding judgments was not justified by the cited legal interpretations, as they either predated the judgments and were considered, or postdated them and thus could not constitute newly-discovered circumstances. This violated Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 found; applications admissible; just satisfaction awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs; remainder of claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Applications joined.
  • Applications declared admissible.