to a deprivation of property. Nor had the seizure of the fuel or its retention pursued any legitimate aim.
42. The Government submitted that the fuel had been seized for inspection under Article 178 of the CCrP (see paragraph 26 above). The above measure amounted to lawful control of use rather than a deprivation of property. The Government contended that the commercial court had rejected the applicant's claim for lack of jurisdiction because claims against officers of the Ministry of the Interior, including claims arising out of the alleged unlawful seizure of property in the framework of criminal proceedings, were to be examined by the courts of general jurisdiction. The commercial court had indicated that the applicant should have directed his claims against the military unit rather than the Ministry of the Interior. The storage contract was regulated by Article 84 of the CCrP and Article 906 of the Civil Code (see paragraphs 24 and 25 above). It was incumbent on the military unit under Article 902 of the Civil Code to pay damages for any loss caused to the applicant's property.
2. The Court's assessment
43. Having established that the applicant had "possessions" under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court has to determine whether the interference complained of was in compliance with the requirements of that provision.
44. The Court does not have to determine whether the circumstances of the case should be classified as a deprivation of possessions or control of use. Neither does it have to take a stance as to whether the inspection and seizure of the fuel was in compliance with Russian law. Even assuming that the above acts were lawful and pursued a legitimate aim, the Court considers that the authorities' failure to return the fuel or pay compensation is disproportionate.
45. The Court reiterates that there must be a reasonable relation of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised by any measures applied by the State. That requirement is expressed by the notion of a "fair balance" that must be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see Edwards v. Malta, No. 17647/04, § 69, 24 October 2006, with further references).
46. The Court has previously held that it does not follow from Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that an applicant's acquittal of the criminal charges must of itself give rise to an entitlement to compensation for any loss alleged to have been suffered as a result of the impounding of his chattels during the period of the investigation (see Adamczyk v. Poland (dec.), No. 28551/04, 7 November 2006, and Andrews v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 49584/99, 26 September 2002; see also, mutatis mutandis, Simonjan-Heikinheino v. Finland (dec.), No. 6321/03, 2 September 2008). However, in Karamitrov and Others v. Bulgaria (No. 53321/99, § 77, 10 January 2008) the Court considered with reference to Article 13 of the Convention that "when the authorities seize and hold chattels as physical evidence the possibility should exist in domestic legislation to initiate proceedings against the State and to seek compensation for any damage resulting from the authorities' failure to keep safe the said chattels in reasonably good condition" (compare Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Turkey, No. 40998/98, §§ 87, 96 - 103, ECHR 2007-...; Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], No. 22774/93, §§ 46 and 57, ECHR 1999-V; {Urbarska} Obec {Trencianske} Biskupice v. Slovakia, No. 74258/01, § 126, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), and Housing Association of War Disabled and Victims of War of Attica and Others v. Greece, No. 35859/02, § 39, 13 July 2006).
47. It is uncontested that the fuel was not attached as evidence to the criminal case against Mr P or any other criminal proceedings,
> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 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
