BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Oleg Anatolyevich TSYGANKOV and Anastasia Gavrilovna TSYGANKOVA v Russia - 23521/06 [2009] ECHR 1595 (17 September 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/1595.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 1595 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
23521/06
by Oleg Anatolyevich TSYGANKOV and
Anastasia Gavrilovna
TSYGANKOVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Nina Vajić,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Sverre Erik
Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou,
judges,
and André Wampach,
Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 May 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Oleg Anatolyevich Tsygankov and Ms Anastasia Gavrilovna Tsygankova are Russian nationals who were born in 1947 and 1918 respectively and live in Saint-Petersburg. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants are pensioners. In 1998 they brought court proceedings against the local branch of the Social Security Service seeking a re-calculation of their pensions.
On 27 May 2005 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Saint Petersburg dismissed the first applicant’s claim and partly granted the claim of the second applicant. On 30 November 2005 the Saint Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to examine the case within a reasonable time, based the judgments on inadmissible evidence, infringed equality of arms, denied a public hearing and overlooked certain claims. They also complained under Article 8 that the State authorities had forged their personal data concerning the calculation of their pensions. They finally complained under Article 10 that the State authorities violated their right to receive the information.
THE LAW
On 14 June 2009 the Court received the following declaration signed by the Government and the applicants:
“The authorities of the Russian Federation and the applicants, Mr Tsygankov Oleg Anatolyevich and Ms Tsygankova Anastasia Gavrilovna, application no. 23521/06, have now reached the following settlement [ ...]: (a) due to humanitarian considerations and interests of respect of human rights, the authorities of the Russian Federation will pay to each of the applicants the sum of 3,600 euros. It will be payable within three months after the notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention. The authorities of the Russian Federation also guarantee to recover the sums of taxes that the applicants will pay when they will receive the sum. [...] (b) The applicants declare that, subject to the fulfilment of what is stated under (a), they have no further claims against the Russian Federation based on the facts of the application filed by them with the European Court of Human Rights.”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
André Wampach Nina Vajić
Deputy Registrar President