исляемые на указанную сумму;
b) что с даты истечения указанного трехмесячного срока и до момента выплаты на эти суммы должны начисляться простые проценты, размер которых определяется предельной кредитной ставкой Европейского центрального банка, действующей в период неуплаты, плюс три процента;
4) отклонил оставшуюся часть требований заявителя о справедливой компенсации.
Совершено на английском языке, уведомление о Постановлении направлено в письменном виде 18 июня 2009 г. в соответствии с пунктами 2 и 3 правила 77 Регламента Суда.
Председатель Палаты Суда
Христос РОЗАКИС
Секретарь Секции Суда
Серен НИЛЬСЕН
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF NOVIKOV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 35989/02)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 18.VI.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 Novikov 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,
Having deliberated in private on 28 May 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 35989/02) 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 Andrey Georgiyevich Novikov ("the applicant"), on 2 July 2002.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms V. Bokareva and Mr M. Rachkovskiy, lawyers practising in Moscow. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 7 March 2006 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 1963 and lives in the town of Blagoveshchensk, Amur Region.
A. Seizure and storage of the fuel
5. On 30 November 1998 the Amur regional police stopped a car. During an inspection of the car, the police discovered a large quantity of aviation fuel. As the driver was unable to produce a certificate for the fuel he was transporting, the police (officer S) seized 22,622 litres of fuel. The police entrusted it for safe keeping to a Belogorsk technical college and later to military unit No. 62266.
6. As the fuel allegedly belonged to a private company OPIUMIK (the "company"), officer S required the company director, Mr P, to produce a document confirming that the fuel had been acquired lawfully. Mr P submitted an invoice dated 1 August 1998. Criminal proceedings were, however, instituted against Mr P on suspicion of forgery of this invoice. The Belogorsk town prosecutor subsequently discontinued the proceedings on the ground that only the forgery of official documents was punishable under the Criminal Code. No decision was taken regarding the fate of the fuel.
7. As can be seen from the domestic courts' f
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 ... 22 23 24