excessive burden" which could have been rendered legitimate only if they had had the opportunity to challenge effectively the confiscation measure imposed in the criminal proceedings to which they were not parties; however, that opportunity was denied them in the subsequent civil proceedings and therefore the "fair balance which should be struck between the protection of the right of property and the requirements of the general interest" was upset (compare Hentrich v. France, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A No. 296-A, § 49).
65. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
66. The first applicant further complained under Article 8 of the Convention about the night search of their flat on 3 July 1998. The applicants also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings that lasted from 3 July 1998 to 18 June 2003 had exceeded a "reasonable time".
67. The Court reiterates that it has already dismissed the complaint about the search at Mr Moiseyev's flat on 3 July 1998 for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), No. 62936/00, 9 December 2004). It finds no reason to depart from that conclusion in the present case.
68. The Court further observes that there was no continuous set of proceedings that lasted from 3 July 1998 to 18 June 2003. The applicants were not parties to the criminal proceedings against Mr Moiseyev and the first applicant introduced her first civil claim only on 13 May 2002. That claim was finally dismissed on 18 June 2003, that is one year and one month later. That period was short and there was no appearance of a violation of the "reasonable time" requirement.
69. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
70. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
71. The first applicant claimed the following amounts in respect of pecuniary damage:
- 6,657.50 euros (EUR) for the loss of rental income from the car garage and the land tax she was liable to pay on it;
- EUR 2,712.60 for one half of the depreciation cost of the VAZ car and the transport tax she was liable to pay on it; and
- EUR 3,537.80 for one half of the cash funds plus interest at the statutory lending rate.
72. The second applicant claimed EUR 800, representing the approximate value of a computer similar to hers.
73. The applicants further claimed EUR 30,000 and EUR 20,000 respectively in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Finally, they claimed jointly EUR 374.60 for legal fees in the domestic proceedings, EUR 122.20 for court fees and EUR 3,000 for their representation before the Court.
74. The Government pointed out that the obligation to pay taxes, such as land and transport tax, was a corollary of the right of ownership. Neither Mr Moiseyev's nor the first applicant's right of ownership to the car garage and the car itself had ever been disputed and they had been therefore liable to tax imposition. The claim for rental income was speculative and the depreciation cost of the car was not supported with any documents. The second applicant's claim for the computer value was excessive, in view of the small amount which the sale of the computer fetched. Finally, the Government considered that the claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage was unreasonable as to quantum and that the appl
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 13
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
