Application no. 67008/01
by Nina Pavlovna MIKHAYLYUK
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section),
1 June 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr L. Loucaides,
Mrs F. Tulkens,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev, 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, Mrs Nina Pavlovna Mikhaylyuk, is a Russian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Bataysk, the Rostov Region. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, 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 is in receipt of an old-age pension. From 1 February 1998 the amount of her pension was to be determined by the Law on Calculating and Upgrading State Pensions (“Pensions Law”). The Pensions Law introduced a new method of upgrading retirement benefits—“Individual Pensioner Coefficient” (“IPC”). The IPC, established for the purpose of calculating individual pensions, was the ratio between the individual’s final wages at retirement and the national average wage, and was meant to maintain a link between a person’s pension and previous earnings.
The authority in charge of the applicant’s pension—the Bataysk Social Security Service (“Service”)—decided that the IPC to be applied to her should be 0.48. The applicant considered this decision arbitrary as it conflicted, in her opinion, with the Pensions Law. On 30 August 1999 she brought an action against the Service.
On 1 December 1999 the Bataysk Town Court found in the applicant’s favour. The court held that since the defendant had misinterpreted the Pensions Law, the applicant’s pension should be recalculated with an IPC of 0.7.
The judgment came into force on 12 December 1999 as no appeal was lodged against it.
On an unspecified date the Service filed an application for re-opening of the judgment. The Service claimed that on 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour and Social Development (“Ministry of Labour”) had passed the Instruction on the Application of Limitations established by the Pensions Law (“Instruction”). The Instruction specified how the Pensions Law should be applied, and its lawfulness was later confirmed by the Supreme Court on 24 April 2000. The Service contended that since it had been unaware of these circumstances at the moment when the judgment was passed, the judgment should be re-considered.
On 5 September 2000 the Bataysk Town Court granted the Service’s application. The court applied Article 333 of the Code of Civil Procedure according to which judgments could be re-considered in case of discovery of significant circumstances which were not and could not have been known to the party concerned. No appeal lay against this decision.
After a fresh examination on 12 October 2000, the Bataysk Town Court dismissed the applicant’s case. The court heard the case in the applicant’s absence because she 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 legal acts which had occurred after the judgment of 1 December 1999 should not have been considered as newly discovered circumstances. Therefore, the re-opening of the final judgment was abusive.
2. She also complained under Article 6 that the judgment of 12 October 2000 had been incorrect; that the case had been examined in her absence; and that she could not have filed an appeal against the judgment because it had been served on her after the expiry of a relevant time-limit.
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 pension of the desired amount.
On 27 April 2004 the President of the Court communicated the complaint about the re-opening of proceedings in her case to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 27 July 2004.
By letter of the Registry of the Court of 5 August 2004 the applicant was requested to submit, by 7 November 2004, her comments on the Government’s observations.
In view of the absence of the applicant’s reply, by letter of the Registry of 8 March 2005, sent by registered mail, the applicant was informed that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 7 November 2004, and that no extension of the time-limit had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provided that the Court could strike the case out of its list of cases where the circumstances led to the conclusion that an applicant did not intend to pursue the application.
The Court notes that, despite the Registry’s
letters of 5 August 2004 and 8 March 2005, the applicant has not submitted
her observations on the merits, her position on a friendly settlement
of the case or her claims for just satisfaction. Nor has she made any
other submissions to the Court since
20 May 2004.
Against this background, the Court considers that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the application. The Court finds no reasons concerning the respect for Human Rights warranting the further examination of the case. By reference to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court considers that the application should be struck out of its list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
MIKHAYLYUK v. RUSSIA DECISION
MIKHAYLYUK v. RUSSIA DECISION