THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 69527/01 
by Valentina Ivanovna REZINKINA 
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29 September 2005 as a Chamber composed of

Mr B.M. Zupančič, President
 Mr L. Caflisch
 Mr C. Bîrsan
 Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska
 Mr A. Kovler
 Mr V. Zagrebelsky, 
 Ms I. Ziemele, judges
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 April 2001,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Valentina Ivanovna Rezinkina, is a Russian national, who was born in 1923 and lives in Novosibirsk. 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.

Since 1978, the applicant has been receiving an old-age pension. From 1 February 1998, the pension was to be calculated under the Law on Calculating and Upgrading State Pensions. This 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 Pension Fund Agency of the Zayeltsovskiy District of Novosibirsk, fixed the applicant’s multiplier at 0.525. The applicant considered that the agency had misread the law, and that her multiplier should be higher. On 12 April 1999, she challenged the agency’s decision in a court.

The case came before the Zayeltsovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk. On 21 October 1999, the court held for the applicant. It found that the agency had misread the law, and that the multiplier should be 0.7.

On 14 December 1999, the Novosibirsk Regional Court dismissed the agency’s appeal, and the judgment came into force.

On 27 March 2000, enforcement proceedings were opened. As the agency had complained about the bailiff in charge of the enforcement, on 10  April 2000 the district court stayed the enforcement.

On 21 August 2000, the agency asked the court to reopen the judgment due to discovery of new circumstances. The agency 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 agency argued that since it had not known about the instruction until after the litigation, the case should be reconsidered.

On 16 January 2001, the district court granted the agency’s request and reopened the judgment.

Having reconsidered the case, on 12 February 2001 the district court held against the applicant. On 22 March 2001, the regional court upheld this judgment on appeal.

COMPLAINTS

1.  The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 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 Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the examination of her case and the enforcement proceedings had lasted longer that they should have under the law, that the enforcement had been unlawfully stayed, and that the judgments had been reasoned insufficiently and arbitrarily.

THE LAW

On 29 March 2004, the Court invited the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. The Government did so on 18 June 2004.

The Court invited the applicant to submit her observations in reply by 2 September 2004. The applicant having failed to do so, the Court reminded the applicant by registered letter that her observations were due. The applicant received this letter on 26 March 2005 but still has not submitted her observations.

The Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue her application, and that it should be struck out of the list under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Vincent Berger Boštjan M. Zupančič 
 Registrar President

REZINKINA v. RUSSIA DECISION


REZINKINA v. RUSSIA DECISION