Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.03.2010 «Дело СПК Димский (SPK Dimskiy) против России» [англ.]

the admissibility of the application on 11 September 2008.
42. Consequently, the Government are estopped from raising a preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies at the present stage of the proceedings. The objection must therefore be dismissed.

B. Submissions by the parties

1. The applicant

43. The applicant pointed out that it had received the Urozhay-90 bonds in 1990 in exchange for the agricultural produce it had supplied to the State. At that time it existed in the form of a collective farm (колхоз), but had been subsequently re-organised into the agricultural co-operative "Dimskiy".
44. The applicant emphasised that the State had not discharged its obligations under the bonds which have remained outstanding to date. According to the general principles of Russian law, any outstanding obligation or debt has a value. The obligation arising out of the bonds could be settled either by implementing the right to purchase goods in high demand or, if that right had not been implemented, by paying compensation in the amount indicated in the bond. However, neither has been done which amounted to a breach of trust and confidence in business relations between the applicant and the State and also frustrated the applicant's legitimate expectation to be paid for the produce it had supplied to the State.
45. The Government's argument about insufficient budgetary funds as a reason for introducing a moratorium on settlement of the commodity bonds was unconvincing for the applicant. As of late the revenues of the Russian federal budget had constantly exceeded expenditure and multi-billion amounts had been transferred into the Stabilisation Fund. In the applicant's view, there were no exceptional circumstances which would be able to account for such a protracted failure to regulate the payment of compensation under the Urozhay-90 bonds.

2. The Government

46. The Government claimed that the Urozhay-90 bonds did not constitute "property rights" or "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They distinguished the present case from the Broniowski v. Poland case ([GC], No. 31443/96, ECHR 2004-V), in which the obligation of the Polish authorities to compensate repatriated persons for abandoned property had not been disputed. In the Government's view, the present case had similarities with the situation obtaining in the Grishchenko v. Russia case ((dec.), No. 75907/01, 8 July 2004), in which the Court had found that the applicant's claim under a commodity bond for the purchase of a Russian-made car had not been sufficiently established to be enforceable.
47. The Government emphasised the specific legal nature of the Urozhay-90 bonds. The bonds were not legal tender; they could not be exchanged for goods or money. They merely certified the holder's right to purchase goods in high demand, but he or she could only do so at his or her own expense. The bonds were distributed in addition to payment for agricultural produce as an incentive for farmers to sell produce to the State. Thus, the face value of a bond did not represent the amount the State owed to the holder but rather the scope of the holder's entitlement to purchase goods which had not been otherwise available for purchase in the early 1990s.
48. The Government pointed out that the bonds had been issued as an individual incentive and that the applicable regulations did not provide for a possibility of their sale or purchase. Referring to the fact that the applicant had been incorporated in 1992, they claimed that the applicant's bonds had been bought from third parties. It could not therefore be said to have suffered an "individual and excessive burden", because it had not submitted any information on the price at which it had purchased the bonds.
49.



> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 12 13 14

	Поделиться:	Tweet