out of the Urozhay-90 bonds could not described as a "debt" because the holders had not given their money to the State and because the State had paid for the agricultural produce. Their recognition in the Commodity Bonds Act as internal debt was "mistaken". The application of the Act had been suspended by successive laws on the federal budget. The interference therefore had a lawful basis and the domestic courts had taken reasoned and justified decisions to dismiss the applicant's claims. It was also in the public interest since, in a situation where the budgetary resources were insufficient to satisfy pressing social needs, the State had a duty to protect the budget from excessive spending.
41. Finally, the Government indicated that at the time of submission of their memorandum a draft law governing the procedure for buyout of the Urozhay-90 bonds had been prepared and submitted to Parliament for a vote. The law would regulate all aspects of redemption of the bonds.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
42. The concept of "possessions" in the first part of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has an autonomous meaning which is not limited to the ownership of material goods and is independent from the formal classification in domestic law. In the same way as material goods, certain other rights and interests constituting assets can also be regarded as "property rights", and thus as "possessions" for the purposes of this provision. In each case the issue that needs to be examined is whether the circumstances of the case, considered as a whole, conferred on the applicant title to a substantive interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Broniowski, cited above, § 129; Iatridis v. Greece [GC], No. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 1999-II; and Beyeler v. Italy [GC], No. 33202/96, § 100, ECHR 2000-I).
43. When declaring the application admissible, the Court examined the issue of applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It found that the scope of the entitlement conferred by the Urozhay-90 bonds on their holders had not been identical throughout their lifetime. In the initial period following their introduction and until early 1992, the bonds had had no independent value, being merely an administrative instrument for the distribution of consumer goods in high demand. In the subsequent period the right the bonds had originally certified - the right to purchase goods in high demand - lost its value and relevance on transition to the market economy. However, the legal regulations governing the bonds evolved in line with the changing economic conditions in Russia, with the result that the bonds were firstly treated as equivalent to discount coupons, later gave access to monetary compensation and, eventually, were recognised as part of the internal debt by the Commodity Bonds Act.
44. The Court further noted that by enacting the Commodity Bonds Act in 1995, the Russian State had taken upon itself an obligation to settle the debt arising out of the Urozhay-90 bonds. That obligation existed both on the date of the ratification of Protocol No. 1 by Russia (5 May 1998) and on the date of the submission of the present application to the Court. Although the application of the relevant provision of the Commodity Bonds Act had been suspended for many years, it had not been revoked or annulled. Moreover, despite the discrepancy in the grounds invoked by the domestic courts which had rejected the applicant's claims, the domestic judgments had acknowledged the existence of a debt arising out of the Urozhay-90 bonds under the Commodity Bonds Act and chargeable to the State.
45. In sum, the Court found that the applicant had a proprietary interest which was both recognised under Russian law and acknowledged by Russian courts and which qualified for protection under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It finds n
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 10 11 12
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
