14 October 2008

FIRST SECTION
Application no. 3036/07
by Lidiya Fedorovna BOGATYREVA and Others
against Russia
lodged on 23 November 2006

STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
The applicants are
1.  Bogatyreva Lidiya Fedorovna, born in 1954;
2.  Golovchenko Oleg Ivanovich, born in 1952;
3.  Zaytseva Svetlana Valentinovna, born in 1954;
4.  Kalashnikova Galina Kuzminichna, born in 1954;
5.  Kudryavtseva Ludmila Ivanovna, born in 1954;
6.  Levchenko Lubov Nikolayevna, born in 1956;
7.  Salimova Farzana Farrakhovna, born in 1954;
8.  Ukolov Valentin Mikhaylovich, born in 1949; and
9.  Yagudina Tatyana Ivanovna, born in 1958.
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 16 December 2004 the Neryungri Town Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic granted their claims.
On 30 March 2005 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld that judgment on appeal and it became binding and enforceable.
On 27 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 16 December 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 16 December 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 16 December 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?