istry of State Property of the Russian Federation, the successor of the State Property Committee, signed a new lease agreement with a private company Oil Compact, which was obligated to undertake all possible measures to release the tanker from arrest.
12. By final judgment of 12 September 2002 the High Court awarded the applicant 79,750.79 United States dollars against the vessel MT Argun and interest at the rate of 15.5% per annum on that amount. The MT Argun was ordered to pay the applicant's costs and travel expenses. It was also decided that the vessel would be sold at an auction to cover the court awards.
13. On 16 May 2003 the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa heard the parties' appeals and upheld the judgment of 12 September 2002.
14. On 21 November 2003 the Ministry of State Property and Ministry of Defence signed an agreement with a private agent OAO Sovfrakht seeking release of MT Argun from arrest and its transfer to the Russian Military Fleet. On the same day OAO Sovfrakht signed an agreement with a third party Avangard-2 Shipping Company S.A. which won the auction and bought the vessel.
15. On 16 January 2004 the MT Argun was handed over to the Russian Military Pacific Fleet.
16. According to the applicant, in June and July 2006 he received part of the judicial award in the amount of 7,156 USD in respect of the wages and 4,752 USD in respect of the accrued interest.
17. On 4 May 2006 the applicant brought proceedings against the State complaining of the actions (inaction) of the Federal Agency for Management of State Property in respect of his claims for unpaid wages and seeking to recover the said wages in the amount of 72.547 USD as well as legal expenses and non-pecuniary damage. On 5 May 2006 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok declined jurisdiction in the case. This decision was upheld by the Primorye Regional Court on 28 June 2006.
18. Thereafter, the applicant brought the same claims before the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow. On 3 October 2006 the District Court declined jurisdiction in favour of a justice of peace. This decision was upheld by the Moscow City Court on 27 February 2007. It appears that the applicant did not bring his claims to any other court.
B. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
19. On 25 November 2002 the authorities initiated criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant in connection with his claims in the South African court.
20. On 17 March 2003 the applicant was charged with fraudulent acquirement of title to the property of the Russian Federation and other related crimes. On the same day his case was sent for preliminary investigation to the military prosecutor's office of the Pacific Fleet, and the applicant was ordered not to leave town.
21. On 26 August 2003 the preliminary investigation was stayed pending the applicant's convalescence. On 5 December 2003 the investigation was resumed.
22. Between 16 January 2004 and 17 June 2005 the applicant and his legal counsel studied the case file.
23. On 20 June 2005 the case was submitted for trial by the Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok ("the District Court") and was assigned to judge I.
24. On 6 July 2005 the applicant requested that the preparatory hearing be postponed due to his counsel's illness.
25. On 17 November 2005 the District Court refused to examine the case and ordered the prosecution to redraft the bill of indictment tainted with a number of defects. The case was returned to the court on 29 November 2005.
26. On 12 January 2006 the hearing did not take place as the judge was involved in different proceedings.
27. The hearing of 13 January 2006 also did not take place due to the applicant's illness. The proceedings were stayed pending his convalescence.
28. On 6
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
