Savings Bank required intervention by the State in the absence of which it was impossible for the applicant to benefit from that entitlement in any respect.
53. In this connection, turning to the Government's preliminary objection ratione personae (see paragraphs 32 and 33 above), the Court notes that, in the present case, it is not called upon to decide whether the State is to be held liable for the debts of the Savings Bank of Russia, which is now a publicly owned private commercial bank; what is in issue is the State's alleged failure to take adequate steps to secure the applicant's property rights to his deposits. The Court therefore rejects this objection.
54. The Court further observes that on 19 February 2003 the Russian Government adopted their decree which for the first time addressed, among other things, the matter of payments to depositors of the former Chechen Savings Bank. The Court considers that it was on that date rather than on 9 July 2004, as alleged by the applicant, that he was given free access to his deposits. Accordingly, the period during which the applicant was unable to enjoy his property rights in respect of his savings lasted from 26 December 2000, when the first-instance judgement conferring on the applicant an entitlement to his deposits became final, until 19 February 2003, when the Russian Government authorised payments to depositors of the former Chechen Savings Bank.
55. The Court further has to ascertain whether the conduct of the Russian authorities in the present case was justified under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. In this connection, it notes the Government's arguments concerning the difficult political, economic and social situation in the Chechen Republic and the loss by the Savings Bank of a considerable number of its primary documents and official seals following the outbreak of the hostilities in the region, which could have entailed falsification of claims for reimbursement of deposits made in the Chechen Republic. The Court is prepared to accept that the circumstances referred to by the Government may have warranted imposing a limitation on access by the depositors of the former Chechen Savings Bank to their accounts, and that the conduct of the Russian authorities respected the principle of lawfulness and was in the public interest. It remains to be decided whether a fair balance was struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the applicant's rights secured by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, or, in other words, whether, taken overall, the applicant can be said to have suffered an "individual and excessive burden" (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 50, Series A No. 98).
56. The Court observes first of all that the applicant's inability to make use of his deposits was of a temporary nature, having lasted a little more than two years (see paragraph 54 above), and that at present he can freely access his savings, a fact which is not in dispute between the parties. Furthermore, although temporarily inaccessible for the applicant, his deposits yielded interest, which by now exceeds the sums of the initial deposits (see paragraphs 19 - 21 above). The Court also does not overlook the fact that, as pointed out by the Government, the applicant is entitled, like any other depositor of the Savings Bank of Russia, to compensation in connection with inflation losses in respect of his savings deposited before 20 June 1991. In such circumstances, the Court is unable to conclude that the applicant was required to suffer an "individual and excessive burden".
57. Overall, having regard to the difficulties encountered by the Russian Government in connection with the hostilities in the Chechen Republic, on the one hand, and to the relevant factors in the situation with the applicant's deposits, on the other h
> 1 2 3 ... 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
