Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.01.2009 «Дело Рыпакова (Rypakova) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF RYPAKOVA v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 16004/04)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 8.I.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 Rypakova 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 4 December 2008,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 16004/04) 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 Tatyana Vasilyevna Rypakova ("the applicant"), on 9 April 2004.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr I. Ilyin, a lawyer practising in Arkhangelsk. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 29 August 2006 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 1956 and lives in Arkhangelsk.
5. In 1994 the applicant paid 10,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB) to a cooperative society whose main activity was the construction of garages (гаражно-строительный кооператив) in order to be provided with a garage as one of its members. Since she was not provided with one, on 30 January 1995 the applicant sued the society by lodging a claim with the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk. The applicant sought to be reinstated as a member of the society and to have her property rights in respect of the garage recognised.
6. The hearing was adjourned on six occasions: twice due to the need to collect evidence; twice due to the respondent's failure to appear, once due to the necessity to summon witnesses and once without any specified reason.
7. On 28 March 1996 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk dismissed the applicant's claim. The court found that she had never been accepted as a member of the cooperative society in accordance with the established procedure and, therefore, had not acquired the right to be provided with a garage. On 22 July 1996 the judgment was quashed on appeal and the case was remitted for fresh consideration.
8. The hearing was postponed five times: twice due to the need to collect evidence; twice due to the respondent's failure to appear and once due to the necessity to summon witnesses. The Government claimed that on one occasion, on 24 December 1997, the applicant failed to appear for the hearing. The applicant contested this statement, claiming that she had been present together with her lawyer.
9. On 31 March 1998 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk granted the part of the applicant's claim relating to her reinstatement as a member of the

> 1 2 3 ... 4 5