for instance on account of its misappropriation or theft (see paragraphs 6 - 10 and 26 above). The Court observes and it is not in dispute between the parties that the fuel had either been consumed or been lost through the fault of a public authority, a fact also acknowledged by the national courts. Despite the above findings, the Russian courts refused to award any compensation to the applicant.
48. Although it is within the province of the national courts to interpret and apply national law, the Court cannot but note the contradictory findings made by the commercial and civil courts in relation to the applicant's claim under the general provisions of the Civil Code concerning tort liability and its specific provisions concerning State liability (see paragraph 22 above).
49. The commercial court examined and rejected the claim for lack of evidence that the seizure of the fuel "had been declared unlawful" and that officer S was responsible for its loss. The appeal court upheld the first-instance judgment and held that the breaches of the law committed by officer S during the inspection and seizure of the fuel had had no direct causal link to the loss of the fuel or to any damage caused to the applicant. It found that the applicant had adduced no evidence that any unlawful actions on the part of the respondent, the Ministry of the Interior, had caused him damage. Lastly, the appeal court held that the applicant and the military unit had entered into a legal relationship under Article 906 of the Civil Code for storage of the fuel (see paragraph 15 above). Thus, it concluded that any damage caused to the fuel during the storage period should have been imputable to the keeper. Subsequently, the cassation-instance court upheld the judgments given by the courts below. In that connection, the Court cannot but note that it was the commercial court's own decision to designate, though with the applicant's consent, the Ministry of the Interior as a proper respondent in relation to the applicant's claims.
50. Following the commercial court's instructions, the applicant sued the military unit in a civil court. However, unlike the commercial courts, the Town Court concluded in its judgment of 12 November 2003 that there had been no legal relationship between the applicant and the authorities, including the military unit (see paragraph 18 above).
51. It follows from the above that although the applicant had an opportunity to bring proceedings against the State, the national courts made contradictory findings in relation to the factual and legal grounds for the applicant's claim for compensation while acknowledging the fact that the impossibility to return the fuel was imputable to a public authority. In the light of the above considerations, the Court considers that the Russian courts' refusals to award the applicant compensation for the loss sustained as a result of the authorities' failure to safe-keep his property amounted in the circumstances of the case to a disproportionate interference with his "possessions" under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
52. There has therefore been a violation of that provision.
II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
53. The applicant also complained in substance under Article 6 of the Convention that in the 2002 commercial court proceedings he had been ordered to prove the fault of the State officials for the damage sustained and that the domestic courts had designated the Ministry of the Interior as the respondent and then dismissed his action because it should have been lodged against a different authority.
54. Lastly, referring to unrelated proceedings (see paragraphs 20 and 21 above) the applicant complained that the authorities had failed to enforce a judicial award and that he had been denied access to a court.
55. However, in the light of all the
> 1 2 3 ... 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
