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

authorities appears to have been passive {vis-a-vis} the implementation of the entitlement of the bond-bearers which had been continuously recognised as part of the State's internal debt. The information available to the Court does not allow it to find that the Russian Government took any measures in that period with a view to satisfying the claims arising out of the bonds. No draft legislation governing the State's obligations under the bonds had been proposed or discussed in Parliament. The preparatory work which was essential for drafting such legislation had not been carried out. The inventory of the bonds, which had already been decided upon in the Government's Resolution of 10 August 1992 (see paragraph 23 above), had never been completed and, accordingly, the exact number and amount of the outstanding bonds could not have been known. The Court therefore finds that the Government's argument that the restrictions on redemption of the bonds had been necessary to prevent excessive expenditure from the federal budget is hardly persuasive. An appropriate balancing exercise determining the exact amount that would be required to settle the debt under the bonds in relation to other priority expenses could not have been possible in the absence of crucial figures, such as the quantity and total valuation of the remaining bonds. While the Court agrees that the radical reform of Russia's political and economic system, as well as the state of the country's finances, may have justified stringent financial limitations on rights of a purely pecuniary nature, it finds that the Russian Government were not able to adduce satisfactory grounds justifying, in terms of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the continuous failure over many years to implement an entitlement conferred on the applicant by Russian legislation.
61. As regards the conduct of the applicant, the Court reiterates that following the enactment of the Commodity Bonds Act he had a legitimate expectation of obtaining some form of compensation for, or redemption of, the Urozhay-90 bonds. He did not remain passive but rather displayed an active attitude by filing a claim with the domestic courts and making use of the appeals procedure. The Government did not suggest that any other effective domestic remedies were available to him. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the applicant was responsible for, or culpably contributed to, the state of affairs which he complained about (compare Broniowski, cited above, § 181). Rather, as the Court has found on the strength of the evidence before it, the hindrance to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions was solely attributable to the respondent State.
62. On balance, the Court considers that the Russian authorities, by imposing successive limitations on the application of the legislative provision establishing the basis for the applicant's right to redemption of the Urozhay-90 bonds and by failing for years to legislate on the procedure for implementation of that entitlement, kept the applicant in a state of uncertainty, which was incompatible in itself with the obligation arising under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to secure the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, notably with the duty to act in good time, in an appropriate and consistent manner where an issue of general interest is at stake (see Broniowski, cited above, §§ 151 and 185).
63. There has therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

64. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

A. Damage

> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12