Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.03.2010 «Дело Максимов (Maksimov) против России» [англ.]

law, upheld the judgment of 6 June 2002. The applicant was present at the appeal hearing.
22. The judgment of 6 June 2002, as upheld on appeal on 27 August 2002, was not enforced in the part concerning compensation for damage, because Mr N. did not have any assets.

3. Tort action against the State authorities

23. On 4 November 2002 the applicant and his daughter lodged an action against the Russian Ministry of Finance, the Krasnoyarsk regional treasury and the Krasnoyarsk regional and Yemelyanovskiy district police departments, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The applicant argued that the State should bear responsibility for the unlawful actions of its agents, in this case police officer N., who had broken into his house and beaten him and his daughter. He also contended that the compensation awarded to him by the judgment of 6 June 2002 was insufficient and had not even been paid to him.
24. On 3 April 2003 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk dismissed the action, reasoning as follows:
"Having heard the parties and having studied the case materials, the court makes the following findings.
On 6 June 2002 the Yemelyanovskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region found Mr N. guilty [of the criminal offences] proscribed by Article 139 § 3 and Article 286 § 3 (a) and (b) of the Russian Criminal Code and sentenced him to three years and six months' imprisonment. [The court] awarded 25,000 roubles in compensation for non-pecuniary damage to [the applicant] (10,000 roubles in his favour and 15,000 roubles to be paid to [his daughter]).
It was established in the court's judgment that on 24 April 2000 Mr N., acting against [the applicant's] will, had entered his dwelling (a country house), where he had fired his gun a number of times. Mr N. had twice hit [the applicant] in the head with the hilt of his gun, causing an abrasion to the applicant's scalp... Mr N. had hit [the applicant's daughter] at least four times in the head with the hilt of his gun, causing a closed craniocerebral injury accompanied by concussion, and four tear-contused wounds...
By virtue of Article 254 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure an individual has a right to appeal to a court against the actions (inactions) of a State body, a municipal authority or their officials.
According to Article 1069 of the Russian Civil Code damage caused to an individual or a legal entity by the unlawful actions (inactions) of State [and] municipal bodies or their officials... must be compensated. The compensation is to be paid out of the funds of the Treasury of the Russian Federation, the treasury of the constituent element of the Russian Federation or the treasury of the municipal entity respectively.
Article 1069 does not cover the unlawful actions of all employees of a State or municipal body but only those of the officials defined in the annotation to Article 285 of the Russian Criminal Code. Officials are persons who permanently, temporarily or on the basis of a specific authorisation perform functions of public agents or perform managerial, regulatory, administrative or economic functions in State and municipal bodies or State and municipal entities. For liability under Article 1069 of the Russian Civil Code to be invoked the official must have caused the damage in the performance of his duties.
By virtue of Article 49 of the Russian Constitution any person accused of having committed a criminal offence is considered innocent until his guilt is proven according to a federal law and established by a final court judgment.
It was established in the court hearing that after the judgment [of 6 June 2002] had become final, Mr N. was dismissed from [the police service].
By virtue of Article 1070 of the Russian Civil Code damage caused to an individual as a result of his unlawf

> 1 2 3 4 ... 25 26 27