Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.12.2009 «Дело Татьяна Макарова (Tatyana Makarova) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF TATYANA MAKAROVA v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 20886/04)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 22.XII.2009)

--------------------------------
<*> 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 Tatyana Makarova 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,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 December 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 20886/04) 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 a Russian national, Ms Tatyana Nikolayevna Makarova ("the applicant"), on 23 April 2004.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr A.V. Kiryanov, lawyer practising in Taganrog. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev and Mrs V. Milinchuk, the former representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 20 November 2006 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3).
4. On 3 December 2009 the Chamber decided that, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, the proceedings in the present case should be conducted simultaneously with those in the cases of Gorovaya v. Russia and MP Kineskop v. Russia (applications Nos. 20882/04 and 16141/05) (Rule 42).

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

5. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Sochi, in the Krasnodar Region.
6. On 31 July 1998 the applicant, together with three other plaintiffs, Mr Kesyan, Ms Gorovaya and MP Kineskop, all represented by the same lawyer, filed an action against the Rostov Regional Department of the Federal Treasury and Mrs O. seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage on account of the unlawful seizure of goods.

A. First round of court proceedings

7. The first hearing was scheduled for 22 September 1998 but was adjourned owing to the judge's leave. The following hearing on 28 December 1998 did not take place owing to the defendants' failure to appear in court.
8. On 11 February 1999, at the plaintiffs' request, the District Court ordered an expert examination and stayed the proceedings.
9. In September 1999 the experts' report was received. In October and November 1999 the applicant's representative amended the claims.
10. On 25 November 1999 the court proceedings were resumed.
11. Between 25 November 1999 and 3 October 2000 the District Court listed eight hearings, of which three were adjourned because the defendants failed to attend and five because none of the parties attended.
12. By a decision of 3 October 2000, the District Court declined to examine the applicant's claims on the merits on the ground of her repeated f



> 1 2 3 ... 4 5

	Поделиться:	Tweet