ended in the part concerning the Urozhay-90 bonds. The suspension clause was maintained in the following years (Federal Law No. 176-FZ of 24 December 2002; No. 186-FZ of 23 December 2003; No. 173-FZ of 23 December 2004; No. 189-FZ of 26 December 2005; No. 238-FZ of 19 December 2006; and No. 198-FZ of 24 July 2007).
30. On 19 July 2009 a federal law governing the procedure for the buyout of the Urozhay-90 bonds was adopted (No. 200-FZ - "the Buyout Act"). It established that holders of the bonds would be paid, in the period between 15 December 2009 and 31 December 2010, an amount equivalent to the nominal value of the bonds divided by 1,000 (section 2). The law also amended the Commodity Bonds Act by removing the reference to the Urozhay-90 bonds from section 1 of that Act.
31. On 15 September 2009 the Government issued Resolution No. 749, setting out the detailed procedure for payments in exchange for the production of Urozhay-90 bonds.
32. On 15 December 2000 the Constitutional Court gave a decision on an application lodged by the Parliament of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, which had claimed that the amendments of 2 June 2000 (see above) had indefinitely delayed the implementation of the State's obligations towards the bearers of the Urozhay-90 bonds. The Constitutional Court declared the application inadmissible for the following reasons:
"In its [previous decisions] the Constitutional Court has already determined that a unilateral change in the scope of the State's obligations towards individuals, including the obligation to sell goods in exchange for commodity bonds, is impermissible. This does not exclude, however, the possibility of imposing restrictions on the property rights of individuals - in an established form and within the constitutional limits - in the matter of State obligations, which is compatible with Article 55 § 3 of the Constitution.
In particular, it follows from the case-law of the Constitutional Court... that implementation of the rights and lawful interests of individual citizens or groups of citizens should not excessively and adversely affect the budgetary resources allocated for satisfying the rights and interests of society as a whole. This principle becomes particularly relevant in a situation where budgetary resources 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
33. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the Russian State's continued failure to leg
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 10 11 12