CASE OF MISHURA AND GAYEVA v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
Elisabeth Steiner;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque
5. The first applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Barcelona. 6. On 25 April 2005 the Justice of the Peace of the 3rd Court Circuit of the Kirovskiy District of Astrakhan dismissed the applicant’s action against the Astrakhan Regional Military Commissariat in which he sought the increase of monthly pension and military-related benefits. 7. On 29 June 2005 the Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan quashed the judgment on appeal and granted the first applicant’s action in part, awarding him a lump sum of 49,215 Russian roubles. The judgment became final. 8. On 28 February 2006 the Presidium of the Astrakhan Regional Court, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgment of 29 June 2005 on the ground of incorrect application of substantive law by the Kirovskiy District Court and upheld the judgment of 25 April 2005. 9. The second applicant was born in 1939 and lived in Ozersk, Russia. She was the widow of Mr Lev Gayev who died of cancer in 1985. 10. On 1 June 2005 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Chelyabinsk acknowledged that Mr Gayev had been exposed to radioactive emissions following a nuclear accident at the Mayak power plant in 1957. 11. In August 2006 the applicant sued the Ozersk Social Security Office for the monthly compensation in connection with the loss of the breadwinner. 12. On 17 October 2006 the Ozersk Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region rejected her claim on the ground that she failed to show that she had been financially dependent on her husband on the day of his death. 13. On 4 December 2006 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court quashed this judgment and partly granted the applicant’s claim. It held that the Ozersk Social Security Office should pay the applicant monthly compensation to be determined in accordance with law. 14. On 25 July 2007 the Presidium of the Chelyabinsk Regional Court, by way of supervisory review, quashed the appeal judgment of 4 December 2006 and remitted the matter to the appeal court, noting that the lower instance court did not duly examined evidence and made wrong application of the substantive law. 15. The judgment of 4 December 2006 was executed between 1 March 2007 and 1 August 2007. 16. On 27 August 2007 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court held a new appeal hearing and rejected the second applicant’s claim.