EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF BORODKIN v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 42234/04)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 17.IX.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 Borodkin v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} <*> Nielsen, Section Registrar,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
Having deliberated in private on 27 August 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 42234/04) 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, Mr Nikolay Dmitriyevich Borodkin ("the applicant"), on 19 October 2004.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, their Representative at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 29 April 2008 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
I. The circumstances of the case
4. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Deputatskiy, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya).
5. In the 1990s the applicant subscribed to a State savings scheme which would entitle him to receive a VAZ car in 1993. He paid the car's full value but never received the car.
6. On 13 February 2003 he received a partial compensation in the amount of 18,538.20 Russian roubles (RUB) equal to 13.35% of the car value.
7. The applicant brought the court action against the authorities, seeking to recover the monetary value of the State promissory notes for purchasing of a car.
8. On 30 June 2003 the Ust-Yanskiy District Court of the Sakha Republic (Yakutiya) allowed the applicant's action against the Government and awarded him RUB 120,428.80 as the full car value less the amount already paid in February 2003. The award was to be paid at the expense of the Federal Treasury.
9. On 28 July 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld the judgment and it became final. The award remained unenforced.
10. On 19 September 2003 the Ministry lodged a request for supervisory review of the case with the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic.
11. On 15 July 2004 the Presidium quashed the judgment of 30 June 2003 and the appeal decision of 28 July 2003 on the ground of a violation of the substantive law and delivered a new judgment in which it dismissed the applicant's claim in full.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
12. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the quashing of the judgment in his favour on supervisory review. This Article, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
"Every natural or
> 1 2 3