Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.04.2010 «Дело Сизинцева и другие (Sizintseva and others) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF SIZINTSEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications Nos. 38585/04, 2795/05, 18590/05,
24012/07 and 55283/07)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 8.IV.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 Sizintseva and Others 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 18 March 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in five applications (Nos. 38585/04, 2795/05, 18590/05, 24012/07 and 55283/07) 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 five Russian nationals. The applicants' names and the dates of their applications to the Court appear in the appended table.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were initially represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by their Representative, Mr G. Matyushkin.
3. On various dates the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the applications to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
4. The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application No. 38585/04, but the Court rejected this objection.

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

5. The applicants live in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic. Their names and dates of birth are indicated in the appended table.
6. In 1990, since cars were not available in free trade, the applicants chose to obtain State special-purpose promissory notes which would entitle them to Russian-made cars. Mrs Valentina Plotnikova should have received a car in 1992 and the other applicants in 1993 - 1995. The applicants paid the car's full value but never received the cars.
7. In 1998 Mrs V. Plotnikova and in 2002 Mrs Gladkova and I. Plotnikova received partial compensation of a car's monetary value in accordance with the State Programme for the redemption of the State internal debt (see paragraphs 20 - 22 below).
8. All applicants brought court actions against the authorities, seeking to recover the full monetary value of the State promissory notes for purchasing of Russian-made cars.
9. On the dates listed in the Appendix the domestic courts found, in respect of each applicant, with reference to the State Commodity Bonds Act of 1995 as amended on 2 June 2000 (see paragraph 19 below) that the State could not be absolved from an obligation to compensate them the full value of the cars. In particular, in the case of Mrs Sizintseva the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) held as follows:
"In accordance with the State Commodity Bonds Act of 1 June 1995 the State commodity bonds, including the special-purpose settlement orders,



> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11

	Поделиться:	Tweet