ехмесячного срока и до момента выплаты на эти суммы должны начисляться простые проценты, размер которых определяется предельной кредитной ставкой Европейского центрального банка, действующей в период неуплаты, плюс три процента;
4) отклонил оставшуюся часть требований заявителя о справедливой компенсации.
Совершено на английском языке, уведомление о Постановлении направлено в письменном виде 8 января 2009 г. в соответствии с пунктами 2 и 3 правила 77 Регламента Суда.
Председатель Палаты Суда
Христос РОЗАКИС
Секретарь Секции Суда
Серен НИЛЬСЕН
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ХХХХХХХ v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 32147/04)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 8.I.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 ХХХХХХХ 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,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 December 2008,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 32147/04) 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 Sergey Aleksandrovich ХХХХХХХ ("the applicant"), on 27 June 2004. He was represented before the Court by Mr D. Isakov and Mr V. Ageyev, lawyers practicing in the town of Kirov.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev and Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been denied access to his adoptive child following her removal from him and his wife.
4. By a decision of 15 May 2007, the Court declared the application partly admissible.
5. The applicant and the Government each filed further written observations (Rule 59 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. The circumstances of the case
6. The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Kirov.
A. Adoption proceedings
7. On 6 May 2000 the Leninskiy District Court of the Kirov Region granted an application by the applicant and his spouse E. for adoption of a girl, A., who had been born on 22 October 1997.
8. On the same date the District Court ordered that the adoption decision be executed immediately and referred to the child's need for individualised care.
9. At that time A. suffered from a slight delay in development of speech functions and from systolic murmur. Her doctors declared her generally fit.
B. Placement in hospital and the child's urgent removal
10. In the autumn of 2003 the applicant and E. noticed that the girl's eyesight was deteriorating and contacted the Russian Children's Hospital in Moscow. The hospital responded by offering an in-patient examination, which the parents declined.
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 25 26 27