Application no. 67006/01
by Valentina Pavlovna PEREVOZNIKOVA
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 30 August 2005 as a Chamber composed of
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr P. Lorenzen,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 December 2000,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Ms Valentina Pavlovna Perevoznikova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1944 and used to live in Bataysk, Rostov Region. The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant received an old-age pension. From 1 February 1998, her pension was to be calculated under the Law on Calculating and Upgrading State Pensions. The law introduced a new method of calculating pensions. This method, “a pensioner’s individual multiplier” was meant to link the pensioner’s pension to his or her work-life earnings.
The authority in charge of the applicant’s pension, the Social Security Service of Bataysk, ﬁxed the applicant’s multiplier at 0.483. The applicant considered that the service had misread the law, and that her multiplier should be higher. On 30 August 1999, she challenged the service’s decision in a court.
The case came before the Bataysk Town Court. On 1 December 1999, the court held for the applicant. It found that the service had misread the law, and that the multiplier should be 0.7.
As the service had failed to appeal, the judgment came into force on 12 December 1999.
On an unspeciﬁed date, the service asked the court to reopen the judgment due to discovery of new circumstances. The service asserted that on 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour and Social Development had passed the Instruction on the Application of Limitations Established by the Law on Calculating and Upgrading State Pensions. The instruction clariﬁed how to apply the law. The service argued that since it had not known about the instruction until after the litigation, and that the case should therefore be reconsidered.
On 5 September 2000, the court granted the service’s request and reopened the judgment.
Having reconsidered the case, on 12 October 2000 the court held against the applicant. The court heard the case in the applicant’s absence because she had failed to attend the hearing. The judgment was served on the applicant on 28 November 2000.
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the reopening of the judgment was abusive because the instruction was not a newly discovered circumstance.
2. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the judgment of 12 October 2000 was incorrect, that the court had heard the case in her absence, and that she had been unable to appeal against the judgment because it had been served on her after the time-limit for appeal.
3. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment of 12 October 2000 had deprived her of the right to receive the desired pension.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
On 2 April 2004, the Court invited the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. The Government did so on 20 July 2004.
The Court invited the applicant to submit her observations in reply by 7 November 2004. The applicant having failed to do so, the Court reminded the applicant by registered letter that her observations were due. On 2 June 2005, the letter returned to the Court: the mail service had been unable to serve it on the applicant because she had moved.
The Court recalls that under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention it may strike an application out of its list of cases if the applicant does not intend to pursue it.
In the present case the Court recalls that the applicant failed to submit observations in reply to those submitted by the Government. Furthermore, the Court notes that the applicant has moved without, however, submitting information to that effect. Her present whereabouts are accordingly unknown to the Court. In these circumstances the Court concludes that she does not intend to pursue her application, and that the case should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
PEREVOZNIKOVA v. RUSSIA DECISION
PEREVOZNIKOVA v. RUSSIA DECISION