THIRD SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 69524/01 by Mayya Filippovna BULGAKOVA against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section) , sitting on 5 April 2005 as a Chamber composed of

Mr B.M. Zupančič , President , Mr L. Caflisch , Mr C. Bîrsan , Mr A. Kovler , Mr V. Zagrebelsky , Mrs A. Gyulumyan , Ms R. Jaeger, judges , and Mr M . Villiger , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 April 2001 ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Mayya Filippovna Bulgakova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1933 and lives in Novosibirsk. The respondent Government are represented by Mr P.A. Laptev , the Representative of the Russian Feder a tion at the European Court of Human Rights.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows .

Since 1988 , the applicant ha d been recei ving an old-age pension. From Fe b ruary 1998 , her pension was to be calculated under the Law on Calcula t ing and Upgrading State Pensions. The l aw introduced a new meth od for calculating pensions. This method, “ a pensioner ' s individual multiplier ” was meant to link the pensioner ' s pension to his or her previous ear n ings.

The authority in charge of the applicant ' s pension , the Pension Fund Agency of the Zayeltsovskiy District of Novosibirsk , fi xed the applicant ' s multiplier at 0.525. The applicant considered that the agency had misread the law, and that her multiplier should be higher . On an unspeci fi ed date in 1999, s he challenged the agency ' s decision in a court.

The case came before the Zayeltsovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk. On 21 October 1999, the court held for the applicant. It found that the agency had misread the l aw , and that the multiplier should be 0.7.

The agency appealed against the judgment, but o n 1 4 December 1999 the Novosibirsk Regional Court dismissed the appeal , and t he judgment came into force.

On 29 February 2000 , a bailiff started the execution of the judgment . On 10 April 2000 the distri ct court adjourned the execution because the agency had complained about the bailiff .

O n 21 August 2000 , the agency asked the district court to reopen the jud g ment due to discovery of new circumstances . The agency asserted that on 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour and Social Development had passed an Instruction on the Application of Limitations E stablished by the Law on Calcula t ing and Upgrading State Pensions . The i nstruction clari fi ed how to apply the law. The agency argued that it had not known about the instruction until after the litigation, and that the case should therefore be re co n sidered .

On 16 January 2001 , the district court granted the agency ' s request and r e opened the judgment under Article 333 of the Code of Civil Procedure . Under this Article, a court might re open a judgment , if a party discovered signi fi cant circumstances that were not and could not have been known to th is party during the litigation.

Having re considered the case, on 12 February 2001 the d istrict c ourt di s missed the applicant ' s claims in full. On 2 2 March 2001 , the r egional c ourt upheld the jud g ment on appeal .

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complain ed under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the judgment should not have been reopened because the instru c tion was not a newly disco v ered circumstance.

2. The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the litigation and execution had lasted longer than they should have under the law, that the execution had been stayed unla w fully, and that the judgments were incorrect .

THE LAW

1. The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the State had reconsidered a favourable final judgment. The Court will consider this complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Prot o col No. 1, because in essence the complaint falls to be examined under these Articles (see Pravednaya v. Russia ( dec .), no. 69529/01, 25 September 2003 ).

Article 6 § 1 , as far as relevant, reads as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... , everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ... .”

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 reads as follows:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

The Government submitted that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded. First, the district court reopened the case not capriciously , but because of the instruction – an important clari fi cation of the pensions law. Second, since the agency had learned about the instruction only after the litigation, the court had good reason to reopen the case. Third, the Constit u tional Court recognised that changes in the law could be considered newly discovered circumstances.

The applicant insisted on her complaint. First, the instruction should not have been considered a newly discovered circumstance because i t arose after the litigation, not before or during it. Second, the agency missed the time-limit for the reopening : it applied to the court eight months after it had learned about the i n struction , instead of three months as the civil procedure require d . Third, the Const i tutional Court ' s opinion was irrelevant, because it concerned only the changes caused by a law ' s unconstitutionality ; the pensions law was constit u tional.

The Court considers, in the light of the parties ' submissions, that the co m plaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determ i nation of which requires an examination of the merits. The Court concludes therefore that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmi s sible has been established.

2. The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the litigation lasted too long, that the execution of the judgment was stayed, and that the courts ' judgments were incorrect .

Nevertheless, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the ma t ters complained of were within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares admissible, without prejudging the merits, the applicant ' s co m plaint that the fi nal judgment in her favour was reconsidered ;

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Mark Villiger Boštjan M. Zupančič Deputy Registrar President