Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.04.2010 «Дело Георгий Николаевич Михайлов (Georgiy Nikolayevich Mikhaylov) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF GEORGIY NIKOLAYEVICH MIKHAYLOV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 4543/04)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 1.IV.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 Georgiy Nikolayevich Mikhaylov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Anatoly Kovler,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 March 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 4543/04) 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, Mr Georgiy Nikolayevich Mikhaylov ("the applicant"), on 24 January 2004.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr O. Gorev, a lawyer practising in Frankfurt am Main. 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 21 October 2008 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate the complaints concerning access to the appeal court, the length of the civil proceedings and the alleged interference with the applicant's right to property to the Government. It also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

A. Background of the case

4. The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in St. Petersburg.
5. In 1979 the applicant was convicted of engaging in an illegal business activity and sentenced to four years' imprisonment. The court also ordered the confiscation of his property, namely an art collection. As part of this collection allegedly disappeared, in 1985 the applicant was convicted of fraudulent theft of State property.
6. In 1989 both judgments were quashed and the proceedings against the applicant were terminated on the ground that no criminal offence had been committed.
7. Between 1989 and 1998 the applicant unsuccessfully tried to recover his art collection.

B. First-instance proceedings

8. In July 1998 the applicant lodged a claim with the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg ("the district court") against the local departments of the Ministries of Justice, the Interior and Finance and the St. Petersburg Prosecutor's Office, seeking compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the confiscation of his property.
9. On 22 July 1998 the district court scheduled a hearing on 1 December 1998.
10. On 1 December 1998 the district court held a hearing, acceded to the defendant's requests and postponed the proceedings until 18 May 1999.
11. On 19 February 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted against third persons for misappropriation of the applicant's art collection; on an unspecified date the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.
12. Between 18 May and 31 August 1999 the district court postponed hearings on four occasions at the defendants' request.
13. O

> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9