s are insufficient to resolve many social problems relating to the exercise of the rights to life and personal dignity. It follows that the balance between the rights and lawful interests of the individuals who act as creditors for the State in property relationships, on the one hand, and everyone else, on the other hand, may, in principle, be struck only in the form of an act of Parliament.
Hence, given that the legislature may restrict individual rights and freedoms (including property rights) for the purpose of the protection of the rights and lawful interests of others, a review of the federal law amending section 3 of the Commodity Bonds Act by the Constitutional Court would imply an assessment of the financial and economic justification for the legislative decision on the procedure for settlement of State commodity bonds, which... falls outside the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.
When examining claims relating to settlement of the State commodity bonds, courts of general jurisdiction have the right and duty to interpret the legislative provisions in the light of the interests of the individual (Articles 2 and 18 of the Constitution) and be guided, in particular, by section 2 of the Commodity Bonds Act, which establishes that State commodity bonds are to be settled in an appropriate form and in accordance with the Civil Code of the Russian Federation."
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
38. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the Russian State's continued failure to legislate on the procedure for redemption of Urozhay-90 bonds. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides:
"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. The Government's preliminary objection
39. The Government, in their additional observations of 18 November 2008 following the Court's decision as to the admissibility of the application on 11 September 2008, contended for the first time that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in respect of its complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They submitted that the Russian courts had not actually taken cognisance of the merits of the applicant's claim because it had been lodged against the wrong defendant and therefore rejected on a procedural ground. Furthermore, the applicant had not applied to the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation with a request for supervisory review.
40. The applicant pointed out that the Government's objection as to the non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies was belated at this stage of proceedings.
41. The Court reiterates that, according to Rule 55 of the Rules of Court, any plea of inadmissibility must, in so far as its character and the circumstances permit, be raised by the respondent Contracting Party in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application (see Prokopovich v. Russia, No. 58255/00, § 29, ECHR 2004-XI (extracts), with further references). The Government's submissions referred to the events that had occurred before the application was lodged with the Court and there had been no relevant legal developments thereafter. There are no exceptional circumstances which would have absolved the Government from the obligation to raise their preliminary objection before the Court's decision as to
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 12 13 14
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
