4.  The applicants are Russian nationals who live in the town of Lytkarino in the Moscow Region. They receive old-age pensions. 5.  On 1 February 1998 the Law on the Calculation and Adjustment of State Pensions (hereafter “the Pensions Act”) introduced a new method of calculation of retirement benefits based on what is known as the “individual pensioner coefficient” (“the IPC”). The IPC was the ratio between an individual's wages at the time of retirement and the national average wage. The IPC was meant to maintain a link between pensions and previous earnings. 6.  The applicants considered that the Lyuberetskiy District Division of the Pension Fund (hereafter “the Fund”) had incorrectly calculated their pensions and they sued the Fund for an increase of their pensions in accordance with the Pensions Act. 7.  On 12 April 2000 the Lytkarino Town Court found in the applicants' favour. The Town Court held that the Fund had misconstrued the law and that the applicants' pensions should be recalculated and increased in line with an IPC of 0.7 starting from 1 February 1998. On 30 May 2000 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 8.  On 31 May 2000 the Fund requested the Lytkarino Town Court to reopen the case owing to a newly-discovered circumstance. The Fund claimed that on 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour and Social Development had issued an Instruction on the Application of Limitations established by the Pensions Act. The Instruction clarified how the Pensions Act should be applied. The Fund further indicated that on 24 April 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation had dismissed the complaint by a group of individuals challenging the Instruction. The Supreme Court found that the Ministry of Labour had acted within its competence when it had issued the Instruction, and that the Ministry's interpretation of the Pensions Act had been correct. The Fund contended that since it had been unaware of the Supreme Court's decision of 24 April 2000 at the time of the judgment of 12 April 2000, the judgment would have to be reconsidered. 9.  On 16 October 2000 and 5 February 2001 the Lytkarino Town Court dismissed the Fund's request. The Town Court held as follows:
“The Supreme Court's judgment [of 24 April 2000] did not invalidate any other decision which had served as a basis for the judgment of the Lytkarino Town Court of 12 April 2000. By that judgment the Supreme Court held that the Instruction of the Ministry of Labour complied with the requirements of the law. But that Instruction existed and was in force at the time the Town Court examined the case and issued the judgment in question. The fact that the Supreme Court gave a detailed analysis of the Instruction, and that it could have been taken into consideration by the Lytkarino Town Court when it issued the judgment, does not lead to the conclusion that the disputed judgment [of 12 April 2000] should be quashed. The Lytkarino Town Court was competent to review the disputed actions of [the Fund] in compliance with the law.”
Both decisions were quashed by the Moscow Regional Court on 8 November 2000 and 26 February 2001, respectively, and the case was remitted for a fresh examination. 10.  On 18 April 2001 the Lytkarino Town Court granted the Fund's request and reopened the proceedings. The Town Court applied Article 333 of the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure according to which judgments could be reconsidered in the event of discovery of significant circumstances which were not, and could not have been, known to the party concerned. The Town Court found that the Instruction could serve as such a circumstance. The decision of 18 April 2001 was final and not amenable to appeal. 11.  On the same day the Town Court, after the fresh examination of the case, dismissed the applicants' action in full, having applied the Instruction.