BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF
MERZHOYEV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 68444/01)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 October
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 Merzhoyev v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nina
Vajić,
President,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre
Erik Jebens,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
judges,
and
André Wampach, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 17 September 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 68444/01) 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 Isa Israilovich
Merzhoyev (“the applicant”), on 3 April 2001.
- The
applicant was represented by Ms S. Alekseyeva, a lawyer practising in
Moscow. 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.
- The
applicant complained of his inability to withdraw his savings
deposited in the Chechen branch of the Savings Bank of Russia.
- By
a decision of 17 January 2008, the Court declared the application
admissible.
- The
applicant and the Government each filed further written observations
(Rule 59 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Moscow.
A. Deposit of savings and attempts to recover them
- On
15 May 1990, 13 March 1991 and 20 February 1992 the applicant, then a
resident of Grozny, Chechnya, deposited 31,881.47, 30,000 and 24,500
Soviet roubles on behalf of his son, his daughter and himself
respectively in three savings accounts with the Grozny branch of the
Chechen Savings Bank, which was an integral part of the USSR Savings
Bank.
- In
late 1994 hostilities began in Chechnya and the applicant left for
Ingushetia. On 5 January 1995 he was registered as an internally
displaced person by the Migration Service of the Sunzhenskiy District
of Ingushetia.
- It
appears that at some point the applicant moved and settled in Moscow.
- In
early 1999 the applicant unsuccessfully requested the Savings Bank of
Russia, the successor of the USSR Savings Bank, to transfer his
indexed deposits to a branch in Moscow.
B. Court proceedings
- Following
the bank's refusal, the applicant brought a court action, seeking to
have his deposits restored, indexed and transferred to the Moscow
branch of the Savings Bank of Russia.
- On 13 October 2000 the Gagarinskiy District Court of
Moscow found against the applicant. The court confirmed the fact that
during the period from 15 May 1990 until 20 February 1992 the
applicant had made deposits on behalf of himself and his two children
with the Grozny branch of the USSR Savings Bank and came to a
conclusion acknowledging “the existence of obligations under
the bank deposit agreements between the applicant and the Savings
Bank”. The court continued:
“According to telegram no. 26-3-2/281a of the
Central Bank of Russia dated 22 December 1997, branches of the
Chechen Savings Bank were closed by virtue of a decision of the
Management Board of the Savings Bank of Russia. These branches were
removed from the State Register of Lending Agencies.
...
It is clear from the case file that all the branches of
the Savings Bank of Russia in the territory of the Chechen Republic
were wound up, and powers of attorney issued to the managers of
[these branches] were revoked and annulled.
The aforementioned circumstances are confirmed by
decision no. 127 of the Management Board of the Savings Bank of
Russia dated 16 December 1996.
At present there is no [legal] mechanism which could
enable the transfer of deposits from branches of the Savings Bank of
the Chechen Republic to the Moscow branch of the Savings Bank of
Russia.
In such circumstances [the applicant's] claim to restore
and transfer his indexed deposits from ... the Chechen [Savings] Bank
to the Moscow branch of the Savings Bank of Russia should be denied.”
- On 26 December 2000 the Civil Section of the Moscow
City Court upheld the judgment of 13 October 2000 on appeal.
- Thereafter
the applicant applied for supervisory review, but to no avail.
C. Further developments
1. Information submitted prior to the decision on
admissibility
- In
their memorial of 1 April 2005 the Government informed the Court that
between 21 January and 22 April 2002 the Government of the Chechen
Republic within the territory of this republic, and the branches of
the Savings Bank of Russia in any other regions of Russia, had made a
list of the former depositors of the Chechen Savings Bank who had
produced their savings books (сберегательные
книжки).
- On
15 April 2003 the Savings Bank of Russia commenced payment of
compensation to those included on the list. As provided by
governmental decree no. 117 of 19 February 2003, this procedure was
applied in respect of savings deposited with the Chechen Savings Bank
prior to 20 June 1991.
- From
1 October 2003 until 31 March 2004 the authorities made an additional
list of former depositors of the Chechen Savings Bank. In the
Government's submission, “repayment of deposits to those
included on the additional list would be made in the near future”.
2. Information submitted after the decision on
admissibility
- In
their additional memorial of 31 March 2008 the Government informed
the Court, in reply to its specific request to that end, that if the
applicant's deposits had been paid to him on 13 October 2000, the
date on which the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow had confirmed
“the existence of obligations under the bank deposit agreements
between the applicant and the Savings Bank”, he would have
received the following amounts.
- In respect of the deposit made on 15 May 1990, the
applicant would have received 2,521.60 Russian roubles (RUB,
approximately 60 euros (EUR)), comprising the sum of the original
deposit and 40 per cent compensation totalling RUB 32.08, plus
accrued interest of RUB 2,489.52.
- As
regards the deposit made on 13 March 1991, the applicant would have
received a total of RUB 557.58 (approximately EUR 13), comprising the
sum of the initial deposit of RUB 30 plus accrued interest of
RUB 527.58.
- In respect of the deposit made on 20 February 1992 the
amount payable to the applicant would have been RUB 56.66
(approximately EUR 1.30), of which RUB 24.50 was the amount of
the deposit and RUB 32.16 the accrued interest.
- The
Government further submitted a letter dated 21 March 2005 which the
Savings Bank had addressed to the applicant, informing him that it
was ready to pay all his deposits, along with the accrued interest,
as well as preliminary compensation in respect of the deposit made on
15 May 1991, in accordance with governmental decree no. 343 of 9 July
2004 (see paragraph 27 below).
- The
Government also submitted a letter of 25 March 2003 addressed by the
Savings Bank to the then Representative of the Russian Federation at
the European Court of Human Rights. The letter stated that on 21
March 2005 a representative of the bank had had a telephone
conversation with the applicant and had invited him to go to the bank
to settle the question of the payment of his deposits; however, the
applicant had refused to accept the amounts due to him, deeming them
insufficient, and had stated that he had been prepared to resolve the
issue only on condition that he would be paid compensation equal to
19,282 United States dollars (USD).
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- In
August 1996 the President of the Management Board of the Savings Bank
of Russia (Председатель
правления
Сберегательного
Банка
России)
ordered that all operations in respect of deposits with the Chechen
Savings Bank be suspended until further notice.
- By
virtue of decision no. 127 of the Management Board of the Savings
Bank of Russia dated 16 December 1996, the branches of the Savings
Bank of Russia in the territory of the Chechen Republic were wound up
and removed from the State Register of Lending Agencies. Powers of
attorney issued to the managers of those branches were revoked and
annulled.
- By
section 12 of decree no. 117 on payment to certain categories of
citizens of the Russian Federation in 2003 of preliminary
compensation (compensation) in respect of deposits with the Savings
Bank of the Russian Federation and certain insurance organisations,
dated 19 February 2003, the Government of Russia entitled the former
depositors of the Chechen Savings Bank to compensation for deposits
they had made prior to 20 June 1991. In particular, individuals who
lived outside the territory of the Chechen Republic could obtain
compensation in those branches of the Savings Bank which had put them
on the list of former depositors of the Chechen Savings Bank.
- Section 15 of governmental decree no. 343 on payment
to certain categories of citizens of the Russian Federation in 2004
of preliminary compensation (compensation) in respect of deposits
with the Savings Bank of the Russian Federation and certain insurance
organisations, dated 9 July 2004, reproduces the provisions of
section 12 of decree no. 117 of 19 February 2003 concerning
compensation for deposits made prior to 20 June 1991 in the
territory of the Chechen Republic. It contains no provisions relating
to deposits made after 20 June 1991.
THE LAW
I. THE GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
A. Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies
- In
their additional memorial on the merits of the case, the Government
contended that the applicant had not lodged any claim with the
national courts concerning payment of his deposits, their
index-linking in line with inflation or the incorrect calculation of
interest, and that therefore he had failed to exhaust the available
domestic remedies. In the Government's submission, they had not
raised this objection earlier because this part of the application
had not been communicated to them.
- The Court reiterates that at the judgment stage it
will not take cognisance of pleas of non-exhaustion unless the
respondent State has already raised them in its written or oral
observations on the admissibility of the application (see, among
other authorities, K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94,
§ 145, ECHR 2001-VII, and N.C. v. Italy [GC], no.
24952/94, § 44, ECHR 2002-X). In the present case, it was
open to the Government to raise their objection regarding
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of any part of the
application which they considered relevant. However, in their
observations on the admissibility of the present application they
failed to do so. Moreover, the Court cannot discern any exceptional
circumstances that could have dispensed the Government from the
obligation to raise their preliminary objection before the adoption
of the Chamber's admissibility decision of 17 January 2008 (see
Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00, § 29, 18
November 2004).
- Consequently, the Government are stopped at this stage
of the proceedings from raising the preliminary objection of failure
to use the domestic remedy. It follows that the Government's
preliminary objection must be dismissed.
B. Jurisdiction ratione temporis and ratione
personae
- In
their additional memorial on the merits of the case, the Government
argued that in so far as the present application concerned the events
that had taken place prior to the ratification of the Convention by
Russia, it was outside the Court's temporal jurisdiction.
- In their memorial on the admissibility and merits of
the case and in their additional memorial on the merits of the case,
the Government further argued that the State was not responsible for
the Savings Bank of Russia, which was now a joint stock commercial
bank (акционерный
коммерческий
банк),
and, in particular, for its obligations in respect of deposits.
According to them, the Savings Bank effected the payment of deposits
from its own funds, and the State did not interfere or finance the
bank's activities. On the other hand, the Government stated that in
the 1990s, during the period of galloping inflation, the State had
assumed obligations to restore and pay compensation in respect of all
deposits made in the Savings Bank prior to 20 June 1991, and
subsequently payment of such deposits and compensation had been
carried out from the funds allocated each year for that purpose in
the federal budget, and that that payment had not been related to the
events in the Chechen Republic and, in particular, the suspension of
the activity of the Chechen Savings bank. In the Government's
submission, it was an act of good will that the State assumed
obligations concerning payment of that compensation, and therefore it
was free to determine the amount of compensation to be paid, who
should receive it, and the time-limits for its payment.
- The Government also insisted that the State was not
responsible for the absence of a mechanism for transferring funds
from the former Chechen Savings Bank to any other branch of the
Savings Bank of Russia. According to them, deposits could only be
transferred by the bank, without any interference by the State. They
also submitted that the domestic legislation imposed no obligation on
the State or the Savings Bank of Russia to develop any specific
mechanism for transferring the deposits.
- The
applicant disagreed with the Government and maintained his complaint.
In so far as the State's responsibility was concerned, he argued that
between 1990 and 1992 he had deposited his savings in the then
State-owned Savings Bank of the USSR, that the Savings Bank of Russia
was its legal successor, and that the State was therefore responsible
for the bank and for the absence of a mechanism for transferring
funds from the former Chechen Bank to any other branch of the Savings
Bank of Russia. In support of his argument the applicant referred to
the fact that the reimbursement of the deposits made in the Savings
Bank was governed by legal instruments adopted by the Russian
Government.
- The
Court reiterates that it may address questions of its jurisdiction at
every stage of the proceedings to satisfy itself that it has
jurisdiction in any case brought before it (see Blečić
v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006 III).
The Court further notes that, in its decision of 17 January 2008, it
decided to join to the merits of the case the questions of its
competence ratione temporis and ratione personae.
Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the parties'
arguments, the Court considers it appropriate to address these
questions in its examination of the substance of the applicant's
complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO
THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention that he had been unable to have his deposits in the
Savings Bank of Russia repaid for a long time and that his savings
had suffered a significant depreciation because of inflation. The
respective Article reads as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of
his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way
impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the
general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties.”
A. Submissions by the parties
1. The applicant
- The
applicant insisted that his property right secured by Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 had been violated. He argued that between 1995 and
2004, when the Government adopted decree no. 343 (see paragraph 27
above), he had been denied any access to his deposits.
- The
applicant did not dispute the Government's argument that he was now
entitled to have all his deposits repaid, but argued that by virtue
of decree no. 343 the amount of his savings, with compensation, would
only be equal to RUB 1,054, corresponding to USD 37.40, whereas
between 1990 and 1992 he had deposited an amount corresponding at
that time to USD 14,832. In the applicant's submission, taking
into account an interest rate of 3-4% per annum, he should have
received a total sum of RUB 558,129.99 (approximately EUR
13,000) if his deposits had been paid to him in October 2000, when
the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow had delivered its judgment.
He further submitted that at present the total sum of his deposits
should be equal to RUB 1,112,836.81 (approximately EUR 25,400).
2. The Government
- The
Government submitted that the activities of the Chechen Savings Bank
had been suspended in August 1996 in view of the difficult political,
economic and social situation in Chechnya, and that it had been
impossible to resume the activity of the bank, as it had sustained
significant pecuniary damage and had lost a considerable number of
its primary documents and official seals, which could have enabled
the falsification of claims concerning the reimbursement of deposits
made with it. In such circumstances, in December 1996 the Management
Board of the Savings Bank of Russia had taken a decision to wind up
the Chechen Savings Bank. The Government thus argued, referring to
these facts, that the Savings Bank of Russia had had no real
opportunity to restore the applicant's savings deposited in the
Chechen Savings Bank and transfer them to the Moscow branch of the
Savings Bank of Russia and that it had had no intention of depriving
the applicant of his possessions.
- The
Government further claimed that the Russian authorities, along with
the Savings Bank of Russia, took steps aiming at identifying
depositors of the Chechen Savings Bank with a view to repaying their
deposits. In particular, in 2001-2002 the authorities had made a list
of former depositors of the Chechen Savings Bank who had produced
their savings books, and the applicant had been free to register
himself on that list. The Government also submitted that it was now
open to the applicant to receive his deposits and the accrued
interest in any branch of the Savings Bank of Russia, on condition
that he made an application and submitted his savings books. They
also stated that under governmental decree no. 343 of 9 July 2004 the
applicant could be entitled to compensation for inflation losses in
respect of his deposits made prior to 20 June 1991. The Government
did not reply to the Court's question whether the applicant was
entitled to any compensation in respect of his deposit made on 20
February 1992.
- The
Government thus argued that the interference with the applicant's
right to withdraw his savings had been of a temporary nature and in
the public interest, given the difficult situation in the Chechen
Republic in the middle of the 1990s and the possibility of
falsification of claims concerning the reimbursement of deposits made
with the Chechen Savings Bank.
- As
regards the applicant's argument that his deposits had significantly
depreciated in value, the Government relied on the Court's
established case-law, stating that the Convention did not guarantee
the right to acquire possessions, or the right to have the purchasing
power of the national currency maintained by the State.
B. The Court's assessment
- The
Court observes that some of the events referred to by the applicant
took place before 5 May 1998, the date of the ratification of the
Convention by Russia, and considers it appropriate to distinguish two
periods for the purpose of examining the present case.
1. Events before 5 May 1998
44. The
Court observes at the outset that in 1996 the management bodies of
the Savings Bank of Russia decided to ban for an indefinite period
any operations in respect of deposits made with the Chechen Savings
Bank, and then to wind it up. Those decisions, which both pre-dated
the ratification of the Convention by Russia, served as
the basis for the Savings Bank's repeated refusal to return the
applicant's deposits and constituted therefore an interference with
the applicant's property rights. The Court further considers that
such interference amounted to a de facto deprivation of the
applicant's possessions since the right of the depositors of the
Chechen Savings Bank, including the applicant, to dispose of their
funds was de facto extinguished by virtue of the
aforementioned two decisions (see Cherkashin v. Russia
(partial decision), no. 7412/02, 30 March 2006, and Pupkov v.
Russia (dec.), no. 42453/02, 17 January 2008).
- The
Court reiterates in this connection that the deprivation of property
is an instantaneous act and does not produce a continuing situation
of “deprivation” of these rights (see Blečić,
cited above, § 86). It therefore finds that it has no
jurisdiction ratione temporis to examine the applicant's
complaint in so far as it relates to the events that took place prior
to 5 May 1998 (see Cherkashin and Pupkov, both cited
above).
2. Events after 5 May 1998
- Having
regard to its above finding that the applicant had been deprived of
his property prior to the ratification of the Convention by Russia
and that this had been an instantaneous act not creating any
continuing situation, the Court has to ascertain whether, in the
period subsequent to the entry into force of the Convention in
respect of Russia, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was applicable in
the circumstances of the present case and, if so, whether it was
complied with.
(a) Applicability of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1
- The
Court reiterates that, according to its established case-law,
“possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 can be either “existing possessions” or assets,
including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he
or she has at least a “legitimate expectation” of
obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right. By contrast, the
hope of recognition of a property right which it has been impossible
to exercise effectively cannot be considered a “possession”
within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Kopecký
v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004 IX,
and the authorities cited therein).
- In the present case, the Court has established above
that the applicant's rights to his deposits were extinguished by
relevant decisions taken in 1996. It is therefore clear that on the
date of the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Russia,
the applicant had at best a mere hope of recovering his savings
rather than any substantive interest protected by Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (see Cherkashin and Pupkov, both cited
above). However, in 2000 the domestic courts at two levels of
jurisdiction established “the existence of obligations”
under the bank deposit agreements between the applicant and the
Savings Bank (see paragraphs 12 and 13 above). The Court therefore
considers that the applicant's claim was sufficiently established to
constitute an asset within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
to the Convention (see, by contrast, Cherkashin and Pupkov,
both cited above).
- The Court further observes that in their decisions the
domestic courts did not specify the amount which the applicant could
have obtained, and therefore the scope of his newly acquired property
remained unclear. In that respect, the parties presented conflicting
arguments. The Government indicated that if the applicant's three
deposits had been paid to him on the date on which the first-instance
court adopted its judgment, the applicant would have received RUB
2,521.60, RUB 557.58 and RUB 56.66 respectively (see paragraphs 18-21
above). The applicant disagreed, stating that in 1990-1992 when he
had deposited his savings, their total value amounted to the
equivalent of USD 14,832, and that therefore on the date of the
adoption of the first-instance judgment he should have received a
total sum of RUB 558,129.99, taking into account an interest rate of
3-4% per annum.
- The Court does not find the applicant's arguments
convincing. It has already noted above that in 1996 the applicant was
de facto deprived of his deposits and that he had no more than
a mere hope for their recovery until 2000, when a new entitlement to
his deposits was created by virtue of the domestic courts' decisions.
In such circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that the amount
which the applicant could reasonably have expected to receive should
be calculated on the basis of the realities of 2000 rather than those
of 1990-1992, and should therefore be comparable with an amount that
any other depositor of the Savings Bank of Russia could have received
in 2000. In this latter respect the Court notes the Government's
argument that payments to former depositors of the USSR Savings Bank
were being made from the federal budget in the amount defined by the
State (see paragraph 32 above). It therefore accepts that the amounts
the applicant could legitimately have expected to receive in 2000
were equal to those indicated by the Government in paragraphs 19-21.
As to the applicant's complaint about the loss in value of his
deposits, the Court reiterates that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does
not oblige a State to maintain the purchasing power of sums deposited
with financial institutions (see Appolonov v. Russia (dec.),
no. 67578/01, 29 August 2002).
- Having regard to the foregoing, the Court concludes
that starting from 26 December 2000, when the judgment of the
Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow of 13 October 2000 was upheld on
appeal and became final, the applicant had a legitimate expectation
of securing the reimbursement of his deposits in the amount of RUB
2,521.60, RUB 557.58 and RUB 56.66 respectively.
(b) Compliance with Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1
- The Court observes that whilst acknowledging the
applicant's entitlement to the deposits, the domestic courts refused
to grant any of his claims with reference to the absence of a legal
mechanism which would have enabled the transfer of the applicant's
deposits from the former Chechen Savings Bank (see paragraph 12
above). Such reasoning clearly demonstrated the need for relevant
legal instruments to be adopted on the issue in question. In other
words, the problem of the deposits in the former Chechen Savings Bank
required intervention by the State in the absence of which it was
impossible for the applicant to benefit from that entitlement in any
respect.
- In
this connection, turning to the Government's preliminary objection
ratione personae (see paragraphs 32 and 33 above), the Court
notes that, in the present case, it is not called upon to decide
whether the State is to be held liable for the debts of the Savings
Bank of Russia, which is now a publicly owned private commercial
bank; what is in issue is the State's alleged failure to take
adequate steps to secure the applicant's property rights to his
deposits. The Court therefore rejects this objection.
- The Court further observes that on 19 February 2003
the Russian Government adopted their decree which for the first time
addressed, among other things, the matter of payments to depositors
of the former Chechen Savings Bank. The Court considers that it was
on that date rather than on 9 July 2004, as alleged by the
applicant, that he was given free access to his deposits.
Accordingly, the period during which the applicant was unable to
enjoy his property rights in respect of his savings lasted from 26
December 2000, when the first-instance judgement conferring on the
applicant an entitlement to his deposits became final, until 19
February 2003, when the Russian Government authorised payments to
depositors of the former Chechen Savings Bank.
- The
Court further has to ascertain whether the conduct of the Russian
authorities in the present case was justified under Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. In this connection, it notes the
Government's arguments concerning the difficult political, economic
and social situation in the Chechen Republic and the loss by the
Savings Bank of a considerable number of its primary documents and
official seals following the outbreak of the hostilities in the
region, which could have entailed falsification of claims for
reimbursement of deposits made in the Chechen Republic. The Court is
prepared to accept that the circumstances referred to by the
Government may have warranted imposing a limitation on access by the
depositors of the former Chechen Savings Bank to their accounts, and
that the conduct of the Russian authorities respected the principle
of lawfulness and was in the public interest. It remains to be
decided whether a fair balance was struck between the demands of the
general interest of the community and the requirements of the
protection of the applicant's rights secured by Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1, or, in other words, whether, taken overall, the applicant can
be said to have suffered an “individual and excessive burden”
(see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986,
§ 50, Series A no. 98).
- The
Court observes first of all that the applicant's inability to make
use of his deposits was of a temporary nature, having lasted a little
more than two years (see paragraph 54 above), and that at present he
can freely access his savings, a fact which is not in dispute between
the parties. Furthermore, although temporarily inaccessible for the
applicant, his deposits yielded interest, which by now exceeds the
sums of the initial deposits (see paragraphs 19-21 above). The Court
also does not overlook the fact that, as pointed out by the
Government, the applicant is entitled, like any other depositor of
the Savings Bank of Russia, to compensation in connection with
inflation losses in respect of his savings deposited before 20 June
1991. In such circumstances, the Court is unable to conclude that the
applicant was required to suffer an “individual and excessive
burden”.
- Overall,
having regard to the difficulties encountered by the Russian
Government in connection with the hostilities in the Chechen
Republic, on the one hand, and to the relevant factors in the
situation with the applicant's deposits, on the other hand, the Court
finds that a fair balance was struck between the
general interest of the community and the applicant's property
interests.
- Accordingly,
there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
in the instant case.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Dismisses the Government's preliminary
objections concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the
Court's competence ratione personae;
- Accepts the Government's preliminary objection
concerning the Court's competence ratione temporis in so far
as the events prior to 5 May 1998 are concerned and holds that
it is unable to consider the merits of that part of the case;
- Holds that there has been no violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in so far as the events
after 5 May 1998 are concerned.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 October 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Nina
Vajić
Deputy Registrar President
