Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.04.2010 «Дело Маргушин (Margushin) против России» [англ.]

§ 2 of the Convention, the following amounts to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 645 (six hundred and forty-five euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amount;
(c) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 April 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Christos ROZAKIS
President

{Andre} WAMPACH
Deputy Registrar

In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the dissenting opinion of Judge Kovler is annexed to this judgment.

C.L.R.

A.M.W.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KOVLER

I cannot share the conclusion of the majority that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the discontinuation of the enforcement of the judgment in favour of the applicant against a private bank.
The first reason for my disagreement is that, generally speaking, a State, according to the Court's case-law, is not responsible for savings deposited in private banks (see X v. Germany (dec.), No. 8724/79, Commission decision of 6 March 1980, Decisions and Reports 20; {Rudzinska} v. Poland (dec.), No. 45223/99, ECHR 1999-VI; Gayduk and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), Nos. 45526/99 et al., ECHR 2002-VI; and Appolonov v. Russia (dec.), No. 67598/01, 29 August 2002).
The second reason is that the Court's case-law is rather clear: the State's responsibility for enforcement of a judgment against a private company extends no further than the involvement of State bodies in the enforcement procedures. Once the enforcement procedures have been closed by a court in accordance with the national legislation, the responsibility of the State ends (see, among other authorities, Shestakov v. Russia (dec.), No. 48757/99, 18 June 2002).
The Court has repeatedly stated that where a judgment is given against the State, the latter must take the initiative in enforcing it fully and in due time (see, among other authorities, Akashev v. Russia, No. 30616/05, §§ 21 - 23, 12 June 2008, and Burdov v. Russia, No. 59498/00, §§ 32 - 42, ECHR 2002-III). When the debtor is a private individual or company, the position is different, since the State is not, as a general rule, directly liable for debts of private individuals or companies and its obligations under the Convention are limited to providing the necessary assistance to the creditor in the enforcement of the relevant court awards, for example through a bailiffs' service or insolvency proceedings (see Kesyan v. Russia, No. 36496/02, 19 October 2006, and Fociac v. Romania, No. 2577/02, §§ 69 - 70, 3 February 2005). The Court has also found that the principle that judgments must be executed cannot be interpreted as compelling the State to take the place of a private defendant in the event of the latter's insolvency (see Reynbakh v. Russia, No. 23405/03 § 18, 29 September 2005, and Bobrova v. Russia, No. 24654/03, § 16, 17 November 2005).
Finally, in the particular circumstances of the present case the applicant accepted the bank's offer to have the outstanding amount in United States dollars converted into Russian roubles and the amount was transferred to his account in another bank (see paragraph 12 of the judgment). Having c

> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8