GONCHAROVA & Ors (Privileged pensioners) v. RUSSIA - 23113/08 [2010] ECHR 684 (10 March 2010)

GONCHAROVA & Ors (Privileged pensioners) v. RUSSIA - 23113/08 [2010] ECHR 684 (10 March 2010)

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 did not constitute newly-discovered circumstances. This violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] ECHR 684
Parties
Applicant: Goncharova and Others (and 68 other 'Privileged pensioners'); Respondent: Russian Federation
Jurisdiction
European Union
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights / Judgment on Admissibility and Merits
Outcome
Violation found; applications joined and declared admissible; partial just satisfaction awarded.
Legal Topics
Right to a Fair Trial, Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions, Legal Certainty, Pension Rights, Quashing of Final Judgments
Human Rights Law Social Security Law Right to a Fair Trial Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions Legal Certainty Pension Rights Quashing of Final Judgments

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

Application Under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights / Judgment on Admissibility and Merits

  1. 1 Whether the quashing of binding judgments awarding recalculated 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 did not constitute newly-discovered circumstances. This violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Court Disposition

Violation found; applications joined and declared admissible; partial just satisfaction awarded.

Orders

  • Applications joined.
  • Applications declared admissible.