CASE OF SHEYMAN v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom
5. The applicants, who are husband and wife, were born in 1932 and 1926, respectively, and live in Bat-Yam, Israel. 6. In 1990s the applicants emigrated from the USSR to Israel and obtained Israeli nationality. Before emigrating, they were receiving old-age pensions from the Soviet authorities. Once the applicants left the USSR, the payments were discontinued in accordance with the USSR pension law in force at the material time. 7. On 4 August 2006 the applicants brought civil proceedings against the competent regional department of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (Пенсионный Фонд Российской Федерации) (hereinafter “the Pension Fund”) seeking reinstatement of their right to the pension payments. 8. On 4 December 2006 the Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan found in the applicants’ favour and ordered the Pension Fund to set up monthly pension payments backdated to 15 June 1998. 9. On 12 January 2007 the Astrakhan Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal and it became binding and enforceable. 10. On 10 July 2007 the Pension Fund lodged an application for supervisory review, seeking to have the judgments quashed. The application was addressed to the President of the Supreme Court. 11. On 27 July 2007 a judge of the Supreme Court requested the case file from the District Court and subsequently suspended enforcement of the judgment of 4 December 2006. 12. On 4 December 2007 another judge of the Supreme Court sent the case for supervisory review to the Astrakhan Regional Court. 13. On 22 January 2008 the Astrakhan Regional Court dismissed the supervisory review application and endorsed the judgment of 4 December 2006, as upheld on 12 January 2007. 14. On 8 April 2008 the Pension Fund lodged another application for supervisory review, again addressed to the President of the Supreme Court. 15. On 24 June 2008 a judge of the Supreme Court sent the case for supervisory review by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court. 16. On 1 August 2008 the Civil Chamber of Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 4 December 2006, as upheld on 12 January 2007, and rejected the applicants’ claims.