Главная страницаZaki.ru законы и право Поиск законов поиск по сайту Каталог документов каталог документов Добавить в избранное добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное




Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.06.2009 "Дело "Новиков (Novikov) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]





findings made in the judgments of 12 November 2003 and 9 January 2004 (see paragraph 18 above). In substance, they claimed in this connection that the applicant had not acquired any title to the fuel and thus could have no valid claim against the authorities.
32. The applicant submitted that the company's or the applicant's title to the fuel had not been contested in the commercial court proceedings. The civil court judgment of 12 November 2003 should not have challenged the relevant findings made by the commercial court. The civil court indicated that the applicant had adduced evidence confirming the ownership title to the fuel; however, that evidence had been rejected as contradicting the findings of the criminal investigation.
33. The Court reiterates that the term "victim" in Article 34 of the Convention denotes the person directly affected by the act or omission which is at issue (see, among other authorities, {Miscarea Producatorilor} Agricoli pentru Drepturile Omului v. Romania, No. 34461/02, § 34, 22 July 2008). It also reiterates that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applies only to a person's existing possessions and does not guarantee the right to acquire possessions (see Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 50, Series A No. 31). Consequently, a person who complains of a violation of his or her right under Article 1 of the Protocol must first show that such a right existed; a "claim" can only fall within the scope of that Article if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see OAO Plodovaya Kompaniya v. Russia, No. 1641/02, § 27, 7 June 2007; Zhigalev v. Russia, No. 54891/00, § 146, 6 July 2006; Uskova v. Russia (dec.), No. 20116/02, 24 October 2006; and Grishchenko v. Russia (dec.), No. 75907/01, 8 July 2004). The assignment of a debt is capable in principle of amounting to such a "possession" (see Nosov v. Russia (dec.), No. 30877/02, 20 October 2005; Gerasimova v. Russia, No. 24669/02, §§ 18 - 22, 13 October 2005; and Regent Company v. Ukraine, No. 773/03, § 61, 3 April 2008; see also OOO Rusatommet v. Russia (dec.), No. 12064/04, 27 November 2008). Thus, the Court has to ascertain whether the assignment in the present case resulted in the acquisition by the applicant of a "possession" or a "claim" within the meaning of Article 1 of the Protocol.
34. The Court observes at the outset that the 2002 commercial court judgments acknowledged that the assignment agreement was compliant with the requirements of the Civil Code. They contain no further argument or analysis on the issue of ownership of the fuel. The Court considers that had the matter been raised in the commercial court proceedings, the commercial courts would have certainly addressed this specific argument in their judgments. Since no party to the proceedings apparently contested it, the courts at three levels of jurisdiction proceeded on the assumption that the company had been the lawful owner of the fuel when they established and subsequently confirmed the relevant factual findings.
35. The Court further observes that in 2003 the court of general jurisdiction rejected the applicant's claims, concluding that he had not proved that the company had had any title to the fuel before signing the assignment agreement in respect of it. The first-instance court held that the fuel purchase contract concluded in 1998 between the company and Mr G could not confirm that the company had acquired the fuel lawfully because the contract "did not correspond to the materials in the criminal case which had been discontinued" or to other materials, including the company director's deposition made in the criminal proceedings. The Town Court refused to accept Mr P's and the applicant's arguments concerning the lawfulness of the fuel purchase, expressly stating that to do so would challenge the factual findings previously made in that respect by the commercial courts. However, in the same judgment, t



> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20 ... 22 23 24

Поделиться:

Опубликовать в своем блоге livejournal.com
0.148 с