Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.06.2009 «Дело Рысев (Rysev) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF RYSEV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 924/03)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 18.VI.2009)

--------------------------------
<*> 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 Rysev 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,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 28 May 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 924/03) 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 Nikolay Leonidovich Rysev ("the applicant"), on 15 December 2002.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were initially represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by Mr G. Matyushkin, their Representative.
3. On 1 July 2008 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

The circumstances of the case

4. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in St Petersburg.
5. In 1987 the applicant inherited one half of a house in Leningrad (now St Petersburg) from his mother.

A. Construction work on the plot of land and
the related proceedings

1. Background

6. In 1989 the City Council decided to build new apartment buildings in the area where the applicant's house was situated. It also decided that the houses affected by the construction plan would be demolished and their inhabitants resettled.
7. Between 1992 and 1996 construction work was carried out on the land by private companies commissioned by the City Council. Different underground pipelines were installed. During the construction work the applicant and his family continued to live in their house. The applicant alleges that as a result of the construction work his garden was destroyed and that the largest part of the plot became unfit for garden purposes.
8. On 26 January 1996 the applicant acquired the title to the plot of land surrounding his house.

2. First examination of the case

9. On 22 September 1997 the applicant brought a court action against the Administration of the Primorskiy District of St Petersburg and private companies which had carried out the construction work. He requested the court to declare that the construction work carried out on the plot of land had resulted in de facto expropriation of part of his land and to award him compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The case was assigned to judge S.
10. In 1998 and 1999 the case was adjourned several times. In particular, between 10 June and 24 November 1998 no hearings were scheduled because the judge was busy in unrelated proceedings. Several hear

> 1 2 3 ... 4 5 6