14 October 2008

FIRST SECTION
Application no. 3038/07
by Olga Petrovna DENISOVA and Others
against Russia
lodged on 2 December 2006

STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
The applicants are
1.  Denisova Olga Petrovna, born in 1959;
2.  Agarkov Aleksey Alekseyevich, born in 1954;
3.  Kuznetsova Raissa Pavlovna, born in 1952;
4.  Kiselev Vladimir Vasilyevich, born in 1953;
5.  Chulykov Nikolay Nikitovich, born in 1954; and
6.  Timurkhanova Munira Gabdimalikovna, born in 1954.
The applicants are Russian nationals who live in the town of Neryungri in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic. They are represented before the Court by Mr I.V. Novikov, a lawyer practising in Novosibirsk.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants, old-age pensioners, sued the Pension Department for an increase of their pension with a multiplier of 1.7 which should have been applicable to those who had previously lived and worked in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic.
On 22 November 2004 the Neryungri Town Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic granted their claims.
On 21 March 2005 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld that judgment on appeal and it became binding and enforceable.
On 13 July 2006 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic quashed the above decisions on the ground of incorrect application of substantive law and dismissed the applicants’ claims.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the quashing of the judgment of the Neryungri Town Court of 22 November 2004, as upheld on appeal, by way of supervisory review.
The applicants complain under Article 13 of the Convention that the quashing of the final judgment violated the principle of legal certainty and, therefore, their right to an effective remedy.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the quashing, by way of supervisory review, of the final judgment of the Neryungri Town Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic of 22 November 2004, as upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, compatible with the applicants’ right to a court under Article 6 § 1?

2.  Was the quashing, by way of supervisory review, of the final judgment of the Neryungri Town Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic of 22 November 2004, as upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, compatible with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?