te of the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Russia, the applicant had at best a mere hope of recovering his savings rather than any substantive interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Cherkashin and Pupkov, both cited above). However, in 2000 the domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction established "the existence of obligations" under the bank deposit agreements between the applicant and the Savings Bank (see paragraphs 12 and 13 above). The Court therefore considers that the applicant's claim was sufficiently established to constitute an asset within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, by contrast, Cherkashin and Pupkov, both cited above).
49. The Court further observes that in their decisions the domestic courts did not specify the amount which the applicant could have obtained, and therefore the scope of his newly acquired property remained unclear. In that respect, the parties presented conflicting arguments. The Government indicated that if the applicant's three deposits had been paid to him on the date on which the first-instance court adopted its judgment, the applicant would have received RUB 2,521.60, RUB 557.58 and RUB 56.66 respectively (see paragraphs 18 - 21 above). The applicant disagreed, stating that in 1990 - 1992 when he had deposited his savings, their total value amounted to the equivalent of USD 14,832, and that therefore on the date of the adoption of the first-instance judgment he should have received a total sum of RUB 558,129.99, taking into account an interest rate of 3 - 4% per annum.
50. The Court does not find the applicant's arguments convincing. It has already noted above that in 1996 the applicant was de facto deprived of his deposits and that he had no more than a mere hope for their recovery until 2000, when a new entitlement to his deposits was created by virtue of the domestic courts' decisions. In such circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that the amount which the applicant could reasonably have expected to receive should be calculated on the basis of the realities of 2000 rather than those of 1990 - 1992, and should therefore be comparable with an amount that any other depositor of the Savings Bank of Russia could have received in 2000. In this latter respect the Court notes the Government's argument that payments to former depositors of the USSR Savings Bank were being made from the federal budget in the amount defined by the State (see paragraph 32 above). It therefore accepts that the amounts the applicant could legitimately have expected to receive in 2000 were equal to those indicated by the Government in paragraphs 19 - 21. As to the applicant's complaint about the loss in value of his deposits, the Court reiterates that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not oblige a State to maintain the purchasing power of sums deposited with financial institutions (see Appolonov v. Russia (dec.), No. 67578/01, 29 August 2002).
51. Having regard to the foregoing, the Court concludes that starting from 26 December 2000, when the judgment of the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow of 13 October 2000 was upheld on appeal and became final, the applicant had a legitimate expectation of securing the reimbursement of his deposits in the amount of RUB 2,521.60, RUB 557.58 and RUB 56.66 respectively.
(b) Compliance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
52. The Court observes that whilst acknowledging the applicant's entitlement to the deposits, the domestic courts refused to grant any of his claims with reference to the absence of a legal mechanism which would have enabled the transfer of the applicant's deposits from the former Chechen Savings Bank (see paragraph 12 above). Such reasoning clearly demonstrated the need for relevant legal instruments to be adopted on the issue in question. In other words, the problem of the deposits in the former Chechen
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 18
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
