INFORMATION NOTE No. 30 on the case-law of the Court May 2001

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(See Article 2, above). ARTICLE 14 DISCRIMINATION (Article 6) Applicant obliged to pay court fees for unsuccessful appeals lodged by the Government: communicated. RUSATOMMET Ltd. - Russia (N° 61651/00) [Section III] (See Article 1 of Protocol <strong>No</strong>. 1, below). DISCRIMINATION (Article 8) Impossibility for child to inherit from natural father having died intestate: communicated. G.N. - Ireland (N° 52787/99) [Section IV] The applicant was born out of wedlock. In 1987, his natural father died intestate. According to the legislation applicable at the time of death, the applicant, as a natural child, had no inheritance rights. In 1989, he brought proceedings to obtain a declaration of paternity and in January 1998 the High Court declared that the deceased was the father of the applicant. The applicant introduced his application to the Court in July 1998. Communicated under Article 35(1) (six months, exhaustion of domestic remedies) and Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14. DISCRIMINATION (Article 1 of Protocol <strong>No</strong>. 1) Entitlement to retirement pension for periods of work outwith Latvia restricted to nationals: communicated. ANDREJEVA - Latvia (N° 55707/00) [Section II]
The applicant is a former USSR national and has been living in Latvia since 1954. Prior to her retirement, she worked in firms based in Riga, except between January 1973 and <strong>No</strong>vember 1990 when she worked for employers with a registered office in Kiev or Moscow. In 1990 Latvia declared its independence. In 1995, when the law on the status of citizens of the former USSR without Latvian or any other nationality was passed, she was granted the status of a "permanently resident non-citizen". In 1997 she retired and asked the Latvian authorities to calculate her pension entitlement. The authorities applied the transitional provisions of the State Pensions Act, by which only periods of work in Latvia were taken into account in the calculation of pensions for foreigners who had been resident in Latvia on 1 January 1991. The applicant’s pension was therefore calculated solely in respect of her periods of work before January 1973 and after <strong>No</strong>vember 1990, the dates between which her employers had had their registered office outside Latvia. She appealed to a higher administrative authority to review that decision. Her appeal was dismissed on the ground that the mere fact of having lived and worked within Latvian territory during the period in issue was of no consequence, since her employer had had its registered office outside Latvia and had accordingly not paid tax to the Latvian authorities. Court proceedings brought by the applicant were unsuccessful both at first instance and on appeal. She appealed on points of law to the Senate of the Supreme Court. The registry informed her in writing that the case would be set down for trial on 6 October 1999 and gave the exact time at which the examination of her appeal was due to start. On that day, however, the hearing began earlier than scheduled and the Senate decided to try the case before the parties had even arrived. The public prosecutor expressed the opinion that the appeal was well-founded, but after deliberation, the Senate dismissed the appeal. The applicant requested that her appeal on points of law be reexamined; her request was refused on the ground that no possibility existed for the revision of a judgment in such circumstances. She was assured that all the submissions of the parties had been taken into consideration. Communicated under Article 14 taken together with Article 1 of Protocol <strong>No</strong>. 1. NATIONAL MINORITY Discrimination against residents of Roma origin: communicated. LACKO, DEMETEROVÁ and LACKO - Slovakia (N° 47237/99) [Section II] (See Article 3, above). ARTICLE 33
Page 1 and 2: INFORMATION <stron
Page 3 and 4: Total number of applications commun
Page 5 and 6: (See Article 3, below). LIFE Disapp
Page 7 and 8: The Court found it unnecessary to d
Page 9 and 10: and the ninth applicant was not the
Page 11 and 12: from head injuries. The applicant l
Page 13 and 14: (See Article 2, above). INHUMAN TRE
Page 15 and 16: applicant’s lawyer again appealed
Page 17 and 18: CYPRUS - Turkey (Nº 25781/94) Judg
Page 19 and 20: Facts: The applicant's son and daug
Page 21 and 22: LAWFUL DETENTION Continued detentio
Page 23 and 24: supposed to be lodged. The Supreme
Page 25 and 26: ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS No<
Page 27 and 28: Article 41 - The Court ordered reim
Page 29 and 30: PRIVATE LIFE Footage from municipal
Page 31 and 32: Denial of access to homes of Greek
Page 33 and 34: Judgment 3.5.2001 [Section IV] The
Page 35: EFFECTIVE REMEDY Effective remedy i
Page 39 and 40: (See Article 3, above). HINDER EXER
Page 41 and 42: GIAMPETRO - Italy (Nº 37170/97) CI
Page 43: [Section III] In May 1993, the Mini

INFORMATION NOTE No. 30 on the case-law of the Court May 2001

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?