maged easily and whose return to their owner is impossible should be given to appropriate entities for use in accordance with [the exhibits'] purpose. If necessary, items of the same type and quality shall be returned to the owner as compensation, or the owner shall be paid a sum equivalent to their value."
26. Article 178 of the Code provides that an investigator may inspect the crime scene or other locations, premises or items for the purpose of detecting physical evidence of the crime or clarifying the circumstances. In urgent situations, the inspection may be carried out before criminal proceedings are instituted. In such situations, the proceedings should be instituted immediately after the inspection.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
27. Referring to Articles 6 and 17 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained about the seizure of the fuel by the authorities, their failure to return it and the courts' refusal to award him compensation. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which reads as follows:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."
A. Admissibility
1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies
28. The Government claimed that the applicant should have lodged a claim against the military unit in the commercial courts.
29. The applicant admitted that his 2002 claim before the commercial court had been directed against the Treasury and the regional police department as a third party to the proceedings. The court had decided to examine the applicant's claim as being directed against the Ministry of the Interior, and had reclassified the police department, the Treasury and the military unit as third parties (see paragraph 14 above). The merits of the applicant's claim had been examined by the commercial courts. Thus, he should be considered as having exhausted the domestic remedies.
30. The Court observes that in 2003 the applicant sued the Russian authorities, including the military unit, before the courts of general jurisdiction (civil courts). Both the Town and Regional Courts took cognisance of the merits of the applicant's claims and rejected them as unfounded. Their reasoning was not confined to the compatibility of the applicant's complaint with the formal requirements (see paragraph 18 above). The Court finds that since the domestic courts examined the substance of the applicant's complaint he cannot be said to have failed to exhaust domestic remedies on account of his failure to raise the same claims against the military unit before the commercial courts (see Dzhavadov v. Russia, No. 30160/04, § 27, 27 September 2007, with further references). Nothing in the Government's submissions suggests that the same claim in the commercial courts would have a better prospect of success. It follows that the complaint cannot be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
2. The applicant's status as a "victim"
of the alleged violation and the existence of interference
and of "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1
of Protocol No. 1
31. The Government also contended that the applicant had not been a victim of the alleged violation on account of the
> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 ... 22 23 24
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
