148 Tanja Penter
sued the Russian state in order to achieve an inflation adjustment of their
compensation payments and social benefits. 37
Moreover, an interesting more recent development demonstrates that
Russia is now also being sued before the ECHR with regard to further accidents involving health damages by radioactive pollution: in April 2008, 29
Russian citizens filed a complaint against the Russian state referring to health
damages due to pollution by a radiochemical plant of the Siberian chemical
industrial complex in Tomsk. 38
The comparison with Ukraine 39 shows that there were also numerous lawsuits by Ukrainian victims of the Chernobyl disaster against the Ukrainian
state after social benefits were not received, including a class action involving
the claims of 12,148 people. 40
One of the first cases against Ukraine was filed with the ECHR by
Svetlana Borisovna Naumenko in 1998. 41 She had been deployed as a disaster relief worker in 1986 after the explosion of the reactor and had suffered
health damage from the radiation. This status was first officially recognized
for her in 1991, which enabled her to claim compensation payments. A year
later, however, this status was withdrawn again by the Ukrainian Ministry of
Health on the grounds that she had not permanently stayed in the exclusion
zone within a 30-kilometer radius of the damaged reactor. After a successful
lawsuit before the regional court in Odessa, Svetlana Naumenko was again
granted the status of a victim of the Chernobyl disaster in 1994. The following year, however, this decision was again annulled. The applicant thus
again lost her right to financial compensation and again took legal action
against this decision. After a seemingly endless odyssey through various judicial instances, the applicant was finally granted the status of a disaster worker
with full entitlement to a state pension in 2003. However, it took until 2004
before the outstanding pension amounts were paid to her. Due to the unreasonable processing time of the courts, Svetlana Naumenko successfully filed
a lawsuit before the ECHR and was awarded a compensation payment of
20,000 euros by the Ukrainian state. 42
The lawsuits before the ECHR by Svetlana Naumenko and other plaintiffs
reveal the problems of the Ukrainian state in meeting the financial claims
of all those affected, including both disaster relief workers sent to the exclusion zone after the accident and residents of the radioactively contaminated
area. The ECHR, which has been confronted with a rapidly growing number of claims from those affected in recent years, had recommended to the
Ukrainian government that the compensation laws be revised accordingly,
but the government has so far refused to do so in view of the high symbolic
political significance of the laws for the Ukrainian nation-building project. 43
The Chernobyl victims enjoy high esteem in the state and society of Ukraine
and are (in case of the liquidators) sometimes revered as national heroes. Due
to the intensifying Ukrainian-Russian conflicts since 2014, the question now
seems to be even more politically charged, as it is also about the assertion of
interpretational supremacy with regard to the Chernobyl catastrophe.
sued the Russian state in order to achieve an inflation adjustment of their
compensation payments and social benefits. 37
Moreover, an interesting more recent development demonstrates that
Russia is now also being sued before the ECHR with regard to further accidents involving health damages by radioactive pollution: in April 2008, 29
Russian citizens filed a complaint against the Russian state referring to health
damages due to pollution by a radiochemical plant of the Siberian chemical
industrial complex in Tomsk. 38
The comparison with Ukraine 39 shows that there were also numerous lawsuits by Ukrainian victims of the Chernobyl disaster against the Ukrainian
state after social benefits were not received, including a class action involving
the claims of 12,148 people. 40
One of the first cases against Ukraine was filed with the ECHR by
Svetlana Borisovna Naumenko in 1998. 41 She had been deployed as a disaster relief worker in 1986 after the explosion of the reactor and had suffered
health damage from the radiation. This status was first officially recognized
for her in 1991, which enabled her to claim compensation payments. A year
later, however, this status was withdrawn again by the Ukrainian Ministry of
Health on the grounds that she had not permanently stayed in the exclusion
zone within a 30-kilometer radius of the damaged reactor. After a successful
lawsuit before the regional court in Odessa, Svetlana Naumenko was again
granted the status of a victim of the Chernobyl disaster in 1994. The following year, however, this decision was again annulled. The applicant thus
again lost her right to financial compensation and again took legal action
against this decision. After a seemingly endless odyssey through various judicial instances, the applicant was finally granted the status of a disaster worker
with full entitlement to a state pension in 2003. However, it took until 2004
before the outstanding pension amounts were paid to her. Due to the unreasonable processing time of the courts, Svetlana Naumenko successfully filed
a lawsuit before the ECHR and was awarded a compensation payment of
20,000 euros by the Ukrainian state. 42
The lawsuits before the ECHR by Svetlana Naumenko and other plaintiffs
reveal the problems of the Ukrainian state in meeting the financial claims
of all those affected, including both disaster relief workers sent to the exclusion zone after the accident and residents of the radioactively contaminated
area. The ECHR, which has been confronted with a rapidly growing number of claims from those affected in recent years, had recommended to the
Ukrainian government that the compensation laws be revised accordingly,
but the government has so far refused to do so in view of the high symbolic
political significance of the laws for the Ukrainian nation-building project. 43
The Chernobyl victims enjoy high esteem in the state and society of Ukraine
and are (in case of the liquidators) sometimes revered as national heroes. Due
to the intensifying Ukrainian-Russian conflicts since 2014, the question now
seems to be even more politically charged, as it is also about the assertion of
interpretational supremacy with regard to the Chernobyl catastrophe.