Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 04.03.2010 «Дело Андреев (Andreyev) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF ANDREYEV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 32991/05)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 4.III.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 Andreyev 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 9 February 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 32991/05) 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 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Andreyev ("the applicant"), on 12 August 2005.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr S. Matytsyn, a lawyer practising in Voronezh. 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 12 June 2008 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 § 3).

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

4. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Voronezh.
5. On 12 July 2002 the applicant rented out his flat to M.
6. On 26 September 2002 M. allegedly forgot to turn off water in the bathroom and thus damaged neighbouring flats of Sh. and A.
7. Subsequently M. compensated damages to Sh., but refused to pay A., considering the sums claimed excessive.
8. On 20 November 2002 A. brought proceedings against the applicant for damages. M. took part in the proceedings as a co-defendant.
9. On 12 November 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the 3rd Court Circuit ordered the applicant to pay A. 40,983 Russian roubles (RUB) in damages and to pay the authorities RUB 1,639.49 of legal costs.
10. The applicant lodged an appeal and on 28 April 2004 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh quashed the judgment, found that there was no fault by the applicant in the damage caused to the A.'s flat and awarded A. RUB 15,261 from M.
11. On 27 August 2004 A. lodged an application for supervisory review of the appeal judgment.
12. On 14 February 2005 the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court quashed that appeal judgment and upheld the judgment of 12 November 2003. The Presidium reassessed the evidence and found that though on 25 September 2002 the applicant concluded an agreement under which he should have obtained the right of property to the flat, this right was duly registered only on 10 April 2003. Therefore before that date the applicant could not rent out his flat to anyone. Thus he remained the flat's sole de jure owner and should have been responsible for it.
13. On 7 Mach 2007 the applicant transferred to the bailiffs RUB 42,322.49 in accordance with the Presidium decision of 14 February 2005.

II. R

> 1 2 3 ... 4