mother, one of the cars, a Mercedes 230, had been immediately impounded again in connection with the criminal proceedings into the theft of this car from its previous owner. The applicant had never complained to a court about the new impounding, although he had been advised to do so by the domestic authorities.
175. The applicant maintained his claims. He argued that the Mercedes 230 car had not been returned to him to date. The police had tricked his mother into signing documents confirming receipt of the car, but then refused to return it, claiming that it had been impounded in connection with another criminal case.
176. The Court reiterates that a "claim" can constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable. Final judgments provide the beneficiaries with sufficiently enforceable claims. The failure by the domestic authorities to comply with a final judgment for a long time constitutes an interference with the beneficiary's right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions (see Burdov v. Russia, No. 59498/00, §§ 40 to 42, ECHR 2002-III).
177. The judgment of 30 January 2006 provided the applicant with an enforceable claim to have his cars returned. It became final as no ordinary appeal was made against it, and enforcement proceedings were instituted. It follows from the documents in the Court's possession that one of the cars was returned to the applicant's mother on 26 April 2006, while the second one, the Mercedes 230, was returned to her on 29 August 2006. The judgment was therefore enforced in full within seven months after it became enforceable, which does not appear excessive (compare Inozemtsev v. Russia (dec.), No. 874/03, 31 August 2006, and Presnyakov v. Russia (dec.), No. 41145/02, 10 November 2005).
178. The Court further notes that although the Mercedes 230 car was immediately impounded again as physical evidence in connection with an unrelated set of criminal proceedings, there is no indication in the case file that the applicant complained before the competent domestic courts that the new impounding was unlawful.
179. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
VI. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
180. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
A. Damage
181. The applicant claimed 7,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage which he sustained as a result of the seizure of his car. He also claimed EUR 110,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
182. The Government submitted that the applicant had not produced any documents confirming pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage. They considered that the claim was excessive and that the finding of a violation would in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
183. The Court observes that the applicant's claim for pecuniary damage is related to his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which has been rejected as manifestly ill-founded. The Court therefore dismisses the claim for pecuniary damage.
184. The Court further notes that it has found a combination of grievous violations in the present case. The applicant was beaten and subjected to electric shocks by the police. The investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment was ineffective. He has spent more than five years in custody pending trial, his detention not being based on sufficient grounds. The criminal proceedings against him have been excessively long. In the
> 1 2 3 ... 23 24 25 26
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
