Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.07.2010 <Дело Саликова (Salikova) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF SALIKOVA v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 25270/06)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 15.VII.2010)

--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Salikova v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina {Vajic} <*>,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 June 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 25270/06) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Ms Tatyana Yevgenyevna Salikova ("the applicant"), on 22 May 2006.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr V. Stepanov, a lawyer practising in Orenburg. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 9 March 2009 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 1).

THE FACTS

The circumstances of the case

4. The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Orenburg.
5. On 3 October 2000 the applicant filed a suit with the justice of peace of judicial circuit No. 7 of the Leninskiy District of Orenburg against a municipal enterprise. She alleged that certain actions of the respondent had led to grave damage to her privately owned house and claimed that the respondent should repair it or provide equivalent monetary compensation, fix construction flaws and pay her compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
6. On 5 October 2000 the justice of peace left the claim without consideration for lack of competence.
7. On 10 October 2000 the justice of peace of the judicial circuit No. 6 also left the claim without consideration for the same reason.

A. First examination of the case

8. On 31 October 2000 the claim was admitted by the justice of peace of the judicial circuit No. 1 of the Tsentralnyy District of Orenburg.
9. On 20 December 2000 the hearing was adjourned due to the respondent's representative's failure to appear.
10. On 18 January 2001 the court granted the applicant's motion to identify a co-respondent and adjourned the hearing.
11. On 19 July 2001 the court ordered a technical examination, which lasted until 25 March 2002. Two questions were put to the experts.
12. On 19 April 2002 the case was transferred to the Tsentralnyy District Court of Orenburg ("the District Court") as falling within the latter's competence.
13. On an unspecified date the applicant altered her claims.
14. On 10 June 2002 the hearing was adjourned to 26 June 2002 as the applicant's counsel failed to appear.
15. On 22 August 2002 the District Court disallowed the applicant's claims. T

> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8