[ad_1]
In a letter dated September 14, 2011, the applicant filed a complaint with the national courts for settling her disability group for more than nine years.
The Court rejected the Government's argument that the complaint was irreceivable. Referring to the case Veis v. France (no. Latvia also in the case Kiryanenko v. Turkey (no. Latvia ECHR noted that the example of the case law provided by the Government was not sufficient to find that the applicant actually used the remedy provided for in Article 92 of the Satversme, this example being applicable for the period after 11 April 2013, almost two years after the final decision of the applicants in this case.
ECT sees this example as possible they could not invoke a fairly clear case law at the time the applicant filed a complaint in a court of law.
In examining the complaint, the ECHR pointed out that the length of proceedings should be calculated on a case-by-case basis. The Court pointed out that in this case the starting point of the proceedings was 9 November 2001, when the Committee of Experts on Health and Welfare refused to extend the procedure. 39, invalidity of the applicant
. Decision of the Supreme Court. Thus, the total length of the proceedings was more than nine years, during which time the Supreme Court quashed the appeal decision and sent it back for a new hearing.
The ECtHR pointed out that the two proceedings were interconnected because the ECtHR reiterated that the duration of each procedure should be badessed in the light of the facts of the case and taking into account the facts of the case. following criteria: the complexity of the case, the acts of the applicant and the competent authorities and the interests involved in the proceedings. The Court recalls that this case concerns the applicant's invalidity status, which confers a right to certain social security benefits and an invalidity pension on a person, and that this decision would be acceptable within the prescribed period [19659002] ECHR] and Lutova c. Latvia stated that he had already stated on several occasions that the Convention had been violated in similar cases in Latvia. The European Court of Human Rights concludes that the proceedings in the applicant's case were excessively long and that the applicant's case was not dealt with "within a reasonable time".
These conclusions were sufficient The applicant claimed compensation of EUR 4,015 for material loss of loss of income and for reimbursement of costs and expenses of EUR 1,400. The ECtHR rejected the claim for compensation for pecuniary damage and court costs, while awarding compensation of 2,700 euros for non-pecuniary damage.
The judgment of the Court is final and without appeal.
The MFA notes that on January 9, 2002, a woman appealed to the Zemgale District Court in Riga to complain that it was illegal and to abolish decisions made by NECAP , who did not extend to him his previous disability group
2002. On 22 April, the Zemgale suburb court in Riga rejected the petitioner's claim that VDEAC's decisions were justified and there was no reason to dispute the medical conclusions of the experts. On May 27, 2002, the Applicant filed an appeal and requested that the matter be dealt with earlier than the date set by the court. The request has been confirmed by the court. However, the case was adjourned three times, until July 30, 2004, the Regional Court's High Court satisfied the request by one party stating that the decisions of the VDEAC were not enough motivated and requesting VSEAP to proceed to the Applicant's Disability Examination. On 30 July 2007, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law seeking the quashing of the judgment of the appeal body. On November 30, 2004, the Administrative Affairs Department of the Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed the decision of the Administrative Court of July 30, 2004, dismissing the cbadation request.
Following a court decision, VDEAC conducted a new medical examination and refused on 11 January 2005 to grant the applicant a disability group. On 9 January 2006, the applicant lodged a complaint with the District Administrative Court to declare the VDEAC decision null and void, to entrust a group of disabled persons to her and to award compensation. On 29 September 2006, the District Administrative Court dismissed the Applicant's request, while on 26 May 2008 the Regional Administrative Court dismissed the Applicant's appeal. By judgment of 23 October 2008, the Department of Administrative Matters of the Supreme Court Senate quashed the Regional Administrative Court's judgment and remitted the case to a new hearing.
Having reviewed the case, the Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's application by judgment of 9 September 2009. On 24 April 2010, the Regional Administrative Court dismissed the Regional Administrative Court's judgment and dismissed the case. to a new audience.
On November 24, 2010, the Regional Administrative Court dismissed the Applicant's claim concerning the determination of the disability group and the compensation of losses. By final decision of March 14, 2011, the Department of Administrative Affairs of the Senate of the Supreme Court refused to open a cbadation procedure.
Source link
