Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 25.02.2010 «Дело Коровина (Korovina) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF KOROVINA v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 24178/05)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 25.II.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 Korovina v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Nina {Vajic} <*>, President,
--------------------------------
<*> 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,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 February 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 24178/05) 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, Ms Antonina Sergeyevna Korovina ("the applicant"), on 27 May 2005.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 25 January 2007 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 1930 and lives in Syzran, Samara Region.
5. On 14 June 1994 the applicant opened a deposit account with a bank at 190% per annum for ten years on behalf of her granddaughter, a minor at the material time (she was born in 1986).
6. Subsequently the bank decreased the interest rate down to 16% and the applicant brought proceedings against it claiming the decrease unlawful.
7. On 21 April 2003 the Syzran Town Court of the Samara Region granted the applicant's claim in part, ordering the bank to make payments on the basis of the interest rate of 85% per annum.
8. On 2 June 2003 the Samara Regional Court amended the judgment on appeal and granted the applicant's claims in full, ordering the bank to maintain the interest rate in accordance with the initial conditions of the deposit, namely 190% per annum. The appeal judgment became final on the same date.
9. After the deposit period expired on 18 June 2004, the appeal judgment was enforced and the applicant's granddaughter received the required sums.
10. However, on the bank's initiative, on 20 January 2005 the Presidium of the Samara Regional Court quashed the previous judgments via supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh consideration, on the grounds that the lower courts had made errors in applying the domestic law.
11. On 7 February 2005 the town court dismissed the applicant's claim.
12. On 14 March 2005 the Samara Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
13. On an unspecified date the bank was awarded back the sums paid to the applicant's granddaughter.

II. Relevant domestic law

14. The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure at the material time is summed up in the Court's judgment in the case of Sobeli

> 1 2 3