Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 25.02.2010 «Дело Куприны (Kupriny) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF KUPRINY v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 24827/06)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 25.II.2010)

--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Kupriny v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Nina {Vajic} <*>, President,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 February 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 24827/06) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by four Russian nationals, Mr Viktor Ivanovich Kuprin ("the first applicant"), Mrs Natalya Pavlovna Kuprina ("the second applicant"), Mr Dmitriy Viktorovich Kuprin ("the third applicant") and Ms Darya Viktorovna Kuprina ("the fourth applicant"), on 5 June 2006.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 26 March 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

The circumstances of the case

4. The first and the second applicants are spouses. They were both born in 1952. The third and the fourth applicants are their children. They were born in 1979 and 1983 respectively. The applicants live in the Tula region.
5. Since 1994 the applicants occupied a flat provided by the first applicant's employer ("the company"). In 1996 the first applicant was dismissed. In 1997 the local administration provided the applicants with another flat. The second applicant moved there with the children and the first applicant continued to live in the first flat.

A. First examination of the case

6. On 29 October 1997 the company brought a court action for eviction of the applicants from the flat provided to them in 1994 before the Suvorovskiy District Court of the Tula Region ("the District Court").
7. On 6 March 1998 the applicants filed a counterclaim against the company for the provision of another flat and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The case was assigned to Judge K.
8. Between May 1998 and March 1999 the District Court scheduled eight hearings. However, the hearings of 4 September, 15 October and 18 December 1998 did not take place because the applicants did not attend them. Four hearings were adjourned because the parties amended their claims. On one occasion the proceedings were postponed because the judge was on sick leave.
9. On 12 March 1999 the District Court granted the applicants' objection to Judge K. and reassigned the case to Judge B. The latter contested that decision before the Tula Regional Court ("the Regional Court"). On 11 November 1999 the Regional Court dismissed his complaint and referred the case to the D



> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7

	Поделиться:	Tweet