Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.03.2010 «Дело Тронин (Tronin) против России» [англ.]

islate 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. Submissions by the parties

1. The applicant

34. The applicant claimed that the time-limit for settling the obligations arising out of the commodity bonds had expired on 1 October 2001. The moratorium on settlements could not be regarded as "lawful" because the federal laws suspending the application of section 1 of the Commodity Bonds Act had been adopted after the expiry of the time-limit.
35. The applicant considered unconvincing the Government's argument about insufficient budgetary funds. In 2003, 2004 and 2005 the revenues of the Russian federal budget had constantly exceeded expenditure and multi-billion amounts had been transferred into the Stabilisation Fund or used for advance repayments of Russia's external debt. The applicant found it inexplicable that advance payments were being made on foreign obligations, whereas the domestic obligations were suspended.
36. Finally, the applicant prayed in aid the judgments of the domestic courts in the cases of Mr Volokitin and Mr Kolyaev (see Kolayev v. Russia, No. 43284/02, 3 July 2008, and Volokitin v. Russia, No. 374/03, 9 November 2006), in which the claims arising out of commodity bonds had been granted in full amount.

2. The Government

37. 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.
38. 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.
39. 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 unspecified materials, they claimed that the applicant had bought the bonds in 1998 from their former holders. He could not therefore be said to have suffered an "individual and excessive burden", because he had not submitted any information on the price at which he had purchased the bonds.
40. According to the Government's position, the obligations arising



> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 10 11 12

	Поделиться:	Tweet