Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 28.05.2009 «Дело Елисеев (Yeliseyev) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF YELISEYEV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 12098/04)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 28.V.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 Yeliseyev v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina {Vajic} <*>,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Anatoly Kovler,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 May 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 12098/04) 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 Vladimir Pavlovich Yeliseyev ("the applicant"), on 28 February 2004.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev and Mrs V. Milinchuk, former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 7 November 2006 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

The circumstances of the case

4. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in St Petersburg.
5. On 2 August 1999 the applicant lodged an action against two private companies seeking compensation for damage caused to his car. On the same day the Sestroretskiy District Court of St. Petersburg adjourned the examination of the action until 9 February 2000 and ordered that the applicant should pay a court fee in instalments.
6. On 23 May 2000 the Sestroretskiy District Court once again adjourned the examination of the action, requesting the applicant to pay an additional court fee because he had amended his claims on 9 February 2000. The applicant paid the fee in full on 30 June 2000.
7. No hearings were fixed between September 2000 and 17 October 2000 because the case file had been sent to the St. Petersburg City Court and the composition of the District Court examining the applicant's case had been changed.
8. The hearing fixed for 17 October 2002 was adjourned because the case file had been sent to the St. Petersburg City Prosecutor's office. The following hearing was listed for 11 March 2003.
9. According to the Government, hearings fixed between 11 March 2003 and 1 November 2004 were postponed because the companies' representatives defaulted or asked for adjournments, and because the presiding judge was ill or involved in other unrelated proceedings.
10. On 1 November 2004 the Sestroretskiy District Court dismissed the action. On the same day the applicant lodged a short version of the statement of appeal against the judgment of 1 November 2004.
11. On 15 November 2004 the applicant complained to the president of the Sestroretskiy District Court that he had not been served with the full text of the judgment of 1 November 2004 and that he had not been allowed to study the case file to prepare his appeal statement.




> 1 2 3 ... 4

	Поделиться:	Tweet