Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.04.2010 «Дело Денисова и Моисеева (Denisova and Moiseyeva) против России» [англ.]

ged property initiated by persons who were not parties to the case shall be examined as a civil claim.
A claim for having the charging order lifted shall be made against the debtor and creditor. If the property has been charged or seized in connection with a confiscation order, the person whose property is to be confiscated, and the competent State authority shall be co-defendants..."
37. Resolution No. 7 of the Plenary Supreme Court of the USSR "On the case-law concerning confiscation of property" (of 29 September 1953, as amended on 29 August 1980) provided:
"4. ...The court should bear in mind that in case of confiscation of the convict's property in its entirety, the confiscation order should only apply to his or her personal property and to his or her part of the jointly owned property, it may not extend to the part of other persons who own that property jointly with the convict. Rights and lawful interests of the convict's family members living with him, must be respected...
9. The courts should bear in mind that even if the criminal judgment contained a list of specific property items liable to confiscation, third parties still may claim their title to that property in civil proceedings... The courts must consider such claims and the criminal judgment does not bind the civil court in its determination of the dispute over the contested property.
However, if the criminal judgment established that the listed property items had been criminally acquired or paid for with criminally acquired assets, but registered in other persons' names with a view to concealing them from confiscation... then the claim for lifting of the charging order shall be dismissed."
38. Resolution No. 4 of the Plenary Supreme Court of the USSR "On legal requirements for examination of claims for lifting of charging orders" (of 31 March 1978, as amended on 30 November 1990) provided:
"9. When considering a spouse's claim for lifting the charging order in respect of his or her part in the joint marital property, the court must bear in mind that... the property acquired in marriage is jointly owned by the spouses and in case of division their parts are presumed equal...
The court must determine the actual size of the spouse's portion of the marital property and the specific items allocated to him or her, having regard to the entirety of the jointly acquired property, including the property that is not - by operation of law or otherwise - liable to confiscation. Each spouse's portion shall include both the property liable to confiscation and that not liable to confiscation..."

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

39. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that their property rights had been violated as regards the domestic courts' refusal to lift the charging order in respect of the spousal portion of the first applicant and of the computer owned by the second applicant. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides as follows:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."

A. Admissibility

40. The parties did not comment on the admissibility of the complaint.
41. The Court notes that the this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further



> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 11 12 13

	Поделиться:	Tweet