Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 16.09.2010 «Дело Черничкин (Chernichkin) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF CHERNICHKIN v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 39874/03)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 16.IX.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 Chernichkin v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} <*> Nielsen, Section Registrar,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Having deliberated in private on 26 August 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 39874/03) 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 Aleksandr Sergeyevich Chernichkin ("the applicant"), on 4 April 2002.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant alleged that he had been denied access to a court.
4. On 3 September 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 § 1 of the Convention).

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

5. The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Moscow.

A. Litigation with the Savings Bank

6. In 1995 the applicant deposited his money with the Savings Bank of Russia (Sberbank). Subsequently, the Savings Bank unilaterally reduced the interest rate on his deposit. The applicant sued the Savings Bank for the damages incurred through the unilateral modification of the interest rate.
7. On 10 March 1998 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated. On 26 May 1998 the Moscow City Court upheld that judgment.
8. On 10 June 1999 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the judgments of 10 March and 26 May 1998 by way of supervisory review and remitted the claim for fresh consideration. The Presidium's decision was set aside by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 16 November 1999. However, on 9 December 1999 the City Court's Presidium re-examined the supervisory-review application, quashed the earlier judgments and ordered a new examination of the applicant's claim.
9. On 17 October 2000 the Tverskoy District Court granted a small portion of the applicant's claims to the amount of 386,63 Russian roubles and rejected the remainder. On 27 October 2000 the District Court adopted a supplementary judgment, by which it declared the deposit agreement, in relation to the right of the Savings Bank to change unilaterally the interest rate, invalid. On 16 February 2001 the Moscow City Court rejected an appeal by the applicant.

B. Action for compensation
for the excessive length of proceedings

10. The applicant lodged a claim against the Ministry of Finance, seeking compensation for pe



> 1 2 3 ... 4 5 6

	Поделиться:	Tweet