Общественное объединение "Сутяжник"

Главная страница

Новости судебных дел

Судебное дело "Свердловское областное региональное отделение политической партии «Российская партия труда» против России (43724/05)"


МЕМОРАНДУМ Свердловского областного регионального отделения политической партии «Российская партия труда» по делу №43724/05 Свердловское областное региональное отделение политической партии «Российская партия труда» против Российской Федерации (на английском) / MEMORANDUM of the applicant on the case SVERDLOVSK OBLAST REGIONAL BRANCH OF THE POLITICAL PARTY “RUSSIAN LABOUR PARTY” against THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (application no. 43724/05)

 

12.11.2007

 

                    SVERDLOVSK OBLAST REGIONAL BRANCH OF

                            THE POLITICAL PARTY

                           "RUSSIAN LABOUR PARTY"

   620072, Yekaterinburg, Sirenevii bulvar, 1-313 t./f. +7(343)355-36-51

                                                          EUROPEAN COURT 

                                                          OF HUMAN RIGHTS

   12 November 2007

                                 MEMORANDUM

                          Application no. 43724/05

    by SVERDLOVSK OBLAST REGIONAL BRANCH OF THE POLITICAL PARTY "RUSSIAN
                LABOUR PARTY" against THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

                         lodged on 1 November 2005 

   I hereby confirm the receipt of the memorandum No 4-155-2-07 of 4 July
   2007  filed  by  the  Representative  of the Russian Federation at the
   European  Court  of  Human Rights. As a response to this memorandum we
   respectfully submit the following.

   1. "To the question on absence of jurisdiction ratione personae of the
   European Court in examination of the application of the applicant."

   The  statement  of  the  Russian Federation that the Sverdlovsk Oblast
   Regional   Branch  of  the  Political  Party  "Russian  Labour  Party"
   ("Regional  Branch"  or  "the Sverdlovsk Oblast Regional Branch of the
   Political  Party  "Russian  Labour  Party")  possesses  limited  legal
   capacity  is  not based on Russian legislation, judicial practice, and
   contradicts  to  the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
   Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention").

   The  legislation  of  the  Russian  Federation provides the registered
   regional  branch  of  the  all-Russian political party with full legal
   capacity.

                   Civil Code of the Russian Federation 

                Article 48. The Concept of the Legal Person

   1.  The legal person shall be recognized as an organization, which has
   in  its  ownership,  economic  management  or operative management the
   set-apart  property  and  which  is answerable by its obligations with
   this  property  and  may  on  its  own behalf acquire and exercise the
   property and the personal non-property rights, to discharge duties and
   to come out as a plaintiff and as a defendant in the court.

   The legal persons shall have an independent balance or an estimate.

   2...

   3.  To  the  legal  persons,  with  respect  to  which  their founders
   (participants)  shall  not have the property rights, shall be referred
   the public and religious organizations (the associations), the charity
   and  other  funds,  and  the  amalgamations  of the legal persons (the
   associations and the unions).

                      Federal Law On Political Parties

      Article 15. The State Registration of a Political Party and Its
                             Regional Branches

   1.  A  political  party  and its regional branches shall be subject to
   state  registration  in  the  compliance with the Federal Law on State
   Registration  of  Legal  Persons and Individual Businessmen subject to
   the  special procedure for state registration of a political party and
   regional   divisions  thereof  established  by  this  Federal  Law.  A
   political   party  and  its  regional  branches  shall  conduct  their
   activities  in  their  entirety, including as legal persons, as of the
   time   of   their   state  registration.  The  confirmation  of  state
   registration of a political party or a regional division thereof shall
   be  the  document  confirming  the  fact  of  making  an  entry on the
   political  party or the regional division thereof to the Unified State
   Register of Legal Persons.

   (Federal Law of 08 December 2003 No 169-FZ).

   The  Court  may duly note that the Regional Branch has been acting and
   lodging  appeals with judicial bodies, including the European Court of
   Human  Rights,  under the Law on Political Parties in its wording of 8
   December  2003  No  169-FZ,  not  in  its  wording of 25 July 2002 No.
   112-FZ,  which was provided in the memorandum of the Representative of
   the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

   Under Part 1 of Article 48 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation
   and  Part 1 of Article 15 of the Law on Political Parties the Regional
   Branch,  representatives  of  the  Regional Branch have an independent
   right  to appeal to judicial bodies of the Russian Federation in order
   to  protect  rights  of the Regional Branch. Furthermore, the Regional
   Branch  may  be  named independently as either a defendant to, or as a
   third  party  to judicial proceedings initiated by other legal persons
   against  it.  Russian  legislation  neither  limits the right of legal
   persons  represented in one region of the Russian Federation to appeal
   to  the European Court of Human Rights ("the European Court") nor does
   it  subject  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  European  Court  to  any
   pre-authorization  by the corresponding national organization for such
   initiatives.

   Under  Part  5,  Article  15  of  the Law on Political Parties (in its
   wording  of  25 July 2002 No 112-FZ) territorial organs of the federal
   organ  (in  the  case  of  Regional Branch this is Chief Bureau of the
   Ministry  of  Justice of the Russian Federation in Sverdlovsk Oblast -
   "the  Chief  Bureau") takes a decision on official registration of the
   regional  branch  of  a  political  party  and  forwards  to the organ
   responsible  for  incorporation  of  legal  persons (Bureau of the Tax
   Ministry  of  the  Russian  Federation in Sverdlovsk Oblast - "the Tax
   Bureau") data and documents which are necessary for inscription in the
   Unified State Register of Legal Persons. In five working days, the Tax
   Bureau  enters  a record of the regional branch of the political party
   concerned  into  the state registry of legal persons. The Chief Bureau
   then  proceeds  to  issue  a  certificate of state registration of the
   regional  branch of the political party concerned which affirms that a
   record  on  new  legal  person  was duly entered into the United State
   Register of Legal Persons.

   The  Regional  Branch  applied  to  the  Chief  Bureau  with necessary
   documentation  for  registration  of  the  Regional  Branch as a legal
   person.  The Chief Bureau forwarded these documents to the Tax Bureau.
   On  17  September  2002  the  Tax  Bureau  issued  еру  Certificate of
   registration  of  the  legal  person  to  the  Regional  Branch (66 No
   003024110).   On  19  September  2002,  the  record  of  incorporation
   designating the Regional Branch as a legal person was entered into the
   United  State  Register  of  Legal  Persons under the registration No.
   1026600001064.  On  19  September  2002,  the  Chief Bureau issued the
   Certificate  of state registration of a regional branch of a political
   party under the no. 3586 which was forwarded to the Regional Branch.

   Part  1  of  Article  48  of Civil Code of the Russian Federation "The
   Concept  of  the Legal Person" and Part 1 of Article 15 of the Federal
   Law  On  Political  Parties  grants the Regional Branch, as a separate
   legal  person,  the  right  to  exercise both property (pecuniary) and
   personal  non-property (non-pecuniary) rights in its own name, to bear
   responsibility  in  its own name, and to act as either a plaintiff and
   defendant  in court proceedings. This full legal capacity existed from
   the  moment  of  its incorporation, that is to say, as of 19 September
   2002.

   Pursuant  to these legislated provisions, the Regional Branch has been
   accordingly   exercising  its  rights  as  a  separate  legal  entity,
   including the right to appear before the courts, on the regular basis.
   Moreover,  due to conduct of the government of the Russian Federation,
   particularly the Chief Bureau, the Regional Branch has been named as a
   defendant  in  a  number  of cases before the courts. For example, the
   Chief  Bureau  filed  legal proceedings against the Regional Branch on
   two   previous  occasions  (see  judgments  enclosed  to  the  initial
   application  to  the  European  Court  of Human Rights, in particular,
   decision  of the Sverdlovsk Oblast court of 21 July 2003 on suspension
   of  judicial  proceedings  in  the  case  of  the Chief Bureau vs. the
   Regional  Branch  on  liquidation  of the Regional Branch; judgment of
   Sverdlovsk  Oblast  court  of  29  July  2004 on the case of the Chief
   Bureau  vs. the Regional Branch on suspension of the Regional Branch's
   activity).

   Moreover,  the Chief Bureau (the "Chief Bureau" has since been renamed
   the  Bureau  of the Federal Registration Service in Sverdlovsk Oblast)
   has  currently  recognized  regional  branches of political parties as
   legal persons through its ongoing conduct. The judgment in absentia of
   12  July  2007 of Federal Court of Kirovskii District of Yekaterinburg
   on  the  case  of  the  Bureau  of the Federal Registration Service in
   Sverdlovsk  Oblast  brought  against the Sverdlovsk Regional Branch of
   the  Party  of  Russian Unity and Consent on suspension of the Party's
   activity  as  a  legal  person  (see appendix 3). It follows from this
   judgment  that  the  government  of  the Russian Federation recognizes
   regional  branches  of  political parties as independent legal persons
   with full standing before the courts.

   Under   Article   1   of   the   Convention   any   person,  including
   non-governmental  organizations,  under  the  jurisdiction of any High
   Contracting  Party,  have the right to appeal to the European Court of
   Human  Rights  in  respect  of  violations  of  Convention rights. The
   European  Commission  of Human Rights determined that non-governmental
   organizations,  which were incorporated on the regular basis under the
   legislation   of   a  High  Contracting  Party,  have  an  unequivocal
   Convention  right  to  appeal  to  the  European Court of Human Rights
   (Report  on  the  session  of  the European Commission of Human Rights
   DH(54)3, p. 8).

   Thus, under applicable Russian legislation, Russian judicial practice,
   and  practice of the European Commission of Human Rights, the Regional
   Branch is a full legal person entitled to appeal to judicial instances
   claiming violations of rights on its own behalf.

   2.  "To the Question on the Termination of Proceedings by the European
   Court  of  Human  Rights  on the Basis of Subclause "a" of Clause 1 of
   Article 37 of the Convention."

   Subclause  "a" of Clause 1 of Article 37 of the Convention states that
   the  European  Court  of Human Rights may strike an application out of
   its  list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
   the applicant does not intend to pursue his application.

   The  Regional  Branch has initiated the present application before the
   European  Court  of  Human  Rights  and  fully  intends  to pursue its
   application  on  the  merits.  Arguments  of  the  respondent, Russian
   Federation, are based on substitution of the applicant.

   On  12  May  2005, the executive committee of the Regional Branch duly
   authorised  lodging  an  appeal to the European Court of Human Rights,
   and  the  application to the Court was filed on 1 November 2005. While
   the  Russian  Ministry of Justice registered the change of the name of
   the  Russian  Labour  Party  to the name of "Patriots of Russia" on 25
   July  2005,  the  Sverdlovsk  Oblast  Regional Branch of the Political
   Party  "Patriots  of Russia" was only incorporated on 30 January 2006.
   It  follows  from the official documents issued by state organs of the
   Russian Federation itself that the present application to the European
   Court  was  lodged  during  the  period  when the Party was called the
   "Russian  Labour  Party."  It  also follows that the Sverdlovsk Oblast
   Regional  Branch of the Political Party "Russian Labour Party" did not
   conduct  any  meetings  whereby  any  decision  was made to rename the
   Regional  Branch,  nor  did  the  Regional Branch receive any official
   documents from state organs renaming the Regional Branch.

   As  of  today,  the Sverdlovsk Oblast Regional Branch of the Political
   Party  "Russian  Labour  Party"  has  not  conducted  any  meeting  or
   conference  on  the  issue  of  changing  its name from the Sverdlovsk
   Oblast  Regional  Branch of the Political Party "Russian Labour Party"
   to  "Patriots of Russia." State registration organs have not presented
   the  Regional  Branch  with  any  claims in this regard, nor have they
   appealed to the judicial organs in any similar fashion.

   On  several occasions, the head of the Regional Branch, S. I. Beliaev,
   attempted  to seek a judicial resolution of the dispute with Bureau of
   Federal   Registration  Service  in  Sverdlovsk  Oblast.  The  latter,
   however,  on  its  own  initiative  and without any documents from the
   Regional  Branch, proceeded unilaterally to register the change of the
   name  of  the  Regional  Branch,  and  misinformed  tax  organs  which
   subsequently  altered  the  Unified  State  Register of Legal Persons.
   Unfortunately,  judicial  organs  within  the  Russian Federation have
   omitted or refused to consider the applications on the merits.

   For  example,  on 4 October 2006, proceedings initiated by the Head of
   the  Sverdlovsk Oblast Regional Branch of the Political Party "Russian
   Labour  Party"  S. I. Beliaev to declare the unlawfulness of conduct a
   of  the  Chief  Bureau  of  the  Federal  Registration  Service of the
   Ministry of Justice in Sverdlovsk Oblast for making unilateral changes
   in the incorporation documents of the Regional Branch of the Political
   Party   "Patriots   of   Russia"   were  discontinued  (ostavleno  bez
   dvizheniia)   by   the   Federal   Court   of  Kirovskii  District  of
   Yekaterinburg.  On  3  November  2006,  the Federal Court of Kirovskii
   District  of  Yekaterinburg returned the application to S. I. Beliaev.
   On  6  March  2007,  cassation instance of the Sverdlovsk Oblast Court
   upheld  the  decision  of  the  Federal Court of Kirovskii District of
   Yekaterinburg.  The decision of Sverdlovsk Oblast court was not handed
   to  the  applicant. On 31 July 2007, the Head of the Sverdlovsk Oblast
   Regional  Branch  of the Political Party "Russian Labour Party," S. I.
   Beliaev  applied  to  Kirovskii District Court of Yekaterinburg with a
   proceeding  seeking  to  declare  actions  of  the  Bureau  of Federal
   Registration  Service  in  Sverdlovsk Oblast in registering changes in
   incorporation  documents  of  the  Sverdlovsk  Regional  Branch of the
   Political  Party  "Russian Labour Party" as unlawful. The case has not
   been considered yet.

   Despite  the  fact that state organs have severely interfered with the
   internal  affairs  of  the  Political  Party  and  its Regional Branch
   through illicit conduct (in registering the change of the name without
   the  decision of the common meeting of the Regional Branch, in issuing
   new  incorporation  documents  to  Zmeev  Boris Nikolaevich, deputy of
   Legislative  Assembly  of  Sverdlovsk  Oblast elected from the list of
   Communist  Party of the Russian Federation. Mr. Zmeev neither has been
   accepted  as  a member of the Regional Branch, nor has he been elected
   as  the  head  of  the  Regional Branch), and ongoing posturing by the
   Russian government which threatens to the security of party activists,
   the  Sverdlovsk Oblast Regional Branch of the Political Party "Russian
   Labour  Party"  fully intends to pursue this application on its merits
   before the European Court of Human Rights.

   3.  To  the question, raised in the observations of the Representative
   of  the  Russian  Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, on
   admissibility  of the application on the basis of Part 3 of Article 35
   of the Convention and to the question, raised by the European Court of
   Human  Rights,  on  violation  of Article 11 of the Convention, having
   regard  to  the  fact  that the applicant was issued a warning for its
   failure  to produce original membership applications on the request of
   the Justice Department. 

   The  objection  of  the Government to the admissibility of the present
   application on the basis of Part 3 of Article 35 of the Convention and
   the  Russian Federation's answer to the question of the European Court
   of  Human  Rights  in  relation  to  violations  of  Article 11 of the
   Convention  are  based  on  the  same  premise.  The Government of the
   Russian  Federation  asserts  that it had a right to demand individual
   applications   of   citizens  on  joining  the  party,  and  that  its
   interference  with  the  right  of freedom of association was based on
   existing legislation.

   The  arguments of the Russian Federation are premised upon an unlawful
   interpretation  of  Clause  "a" of Part 1 of Article 38 of the Federal
   Law  On  Political  Parties.  Under  para.  2  of  Article  11  of the
   Convention  "no  restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these
   rights  other  than  such as are prescribed by law." The Government of
   the  Russian Federation such a legislative restriction is contained in
   Clause  "a"  of  Part  1 of Article 38 of the Federal Law On Political
   Parties,  which  grants authorities with the right not more often than
   once  a year to familiarize themselves with the documents of political
   parties  and  their  regional  branches which confirm... the number of
   members of each regional branch of political party.

   The  Regional  Branch  does not deny the right of the authorities (the
   Chief  Bureau)  "to  familiarize  themselves  with  the  documents  of
   political  parties  and  their  regional branches which confirm... the
   number  of  members  of  each  regional  branch  of  political party."
   However,  the  Regional  Branch maintains that documents which confirm
   the  number  of members of political party include party documentation
   limited to the minutes of common meetings on the issue of admission of
   citizens to the party.

   Individual  applications  to  become a member of a party per se do not
   confirm  the  number  of members of a political party. The fact that a
   citizen  may  apply  for party membership does not guarantee automatic
   acceptance  to  membership  in  the  party.  General  meetings  of the
   Regional  Branch  can  dismiss individual applications for membership.
   Therefore,  the  number of membership applications does not (and could
   not)  coincide  with  the  number  of  actual party members. The Chief
   Bureau's  mere  interpretation of legislation concerned, resulted in a
   demand  for  particular  documents when carrying out inspection of the
   activities of the Regional Branch. The conduct of the Chief Bureau may
   be  construed as an undue intrusion into the role of the legislator in
   this regard. The Legislator merely obliged political parties to inform
   authorities  about  the  number of party members, but left the form of
   the requisite information to be defined by party organs.

   On  many  occasions  the  European Court of Human Rights has confirmed
   that  non-governmental  organizations  have  a  right to deny citizens
   party   membership   (so-called  negative  aspects  of  the  right  to
   association).  In this regard, the judgment of 27 February 2007 on the
   case of Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF)
   v.  the  United  Kingdom  could be mentioned. In this case, the labour
   union  expelled  one  of its members, Mr. Lee, due to Mr. Lee's active
   membership in a far-right political party (which held a position which
   contradicted  the  objectives  of  the  union).  Mr.  Lee appealed his
   expulsion  to  the  Employment  Tribunal.  After certain hearings, the
   union  was  forced to accept Mr. Lee back. The European Court of Human
   Rights  ruled  that  the  United  Kingdom  violated  Article 11 of the
   Convention  due  to national legislation which restricted the right of
   labour  unions  to define the conditions of their membership. In other
   words,  the  European  Court held that the right of a non-governmental
   organization  not  to  grant its membership to a particular person has
   certain  priority over the right of an individual to be a member of an
   organization.

   Thus,  when  conducting an inspection, the Chief Bureau has a right to
   demand  only  those  documents  which  could  serve as evidence of the
   number  of  party members. The Regional Branch duly provided the Chief
   Bureau  with  minutes  of  general  meetings. At the moment of initial
   registration  of  the  Regional  Branch, the Chief Bureau regarded the
   minutes  of  common meetings as documents which verified the number of
   party  members  as  sufficient.  But  at the time of the inspection in
   question,  the  Chief  Bureau  did  not  deem  the minutes of meetings
   sufficient  and  proceeded  to  insist on the production of individual
   applications  which  contain personal data. From the moment of initial
   incorporation  until  the  moment  of  the contested inspection of the
   Regional  Branch, the membership of the Regional Branch did not change
   in  numbers;  the  Regional  Branch  thus submitted the minutes of the
   general  meeting on acceptance of citizens to the members of the party
   for inspection purposes.

   The coercive demand of the government of the Russian Federation to the
   Regional Branch to produce individual applications is not based on the
   law; it is a veiled attempt to interfere with the internal activity of
   the  Regional Branch and its membership. This fact is confirmed by the
   text  of  observations  of  the  government  of the Russian Federation
   submitted  to  this  Court.  It  follows from the Russian Federation's
   observations  that  the  purpose  of  the demand to produce individual
   applications  is  not  mere  examination  of the number of members but
   rather  identification of persons (see P. 14 of the Observations), and
   to  "check  of  personal  data of [party] members and then signatures"
   (see  P.  15  of the Observations). The fact that personal data of the
   party  members  is accessible to the Government leads to the situation
   where  party  members  fear  that  government  authorities  would make
   illicit use of personal data provided in order to intimidate them. The
   demand  for  individual applications by Russian government authorities
   is  a  violation  of  Article  11 of the Convention. The review of the
   case-law  of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights on the "chilling
   effect" issue was stated in the initial application.

    4. Violations  of  the  Right  to  a  Fair Trial (Article 6(1) of the
       Convention)

   The  European  Court  may  duly  note  that  both the Federal Court of
   Kirovskii  District  (in  its  decision  of  3  March  2005),  and the
   Sverdlovsk  Oblast  Court  (in  its decision of 12 May 2005) failed to
   address   the  applicant's  main  arguments  which  were  explicit  in
   alleging  violations  of the right of freedom of association enshrined
   in Article 11 of the Convention. 

   The  Court  may  note  further  that  the Sverdlovsk Oblast Court also
   failed  to address the applicant's specific appeal argument alleging a
   separate  violation  of  the  Article 6 Convention guarantee to a fair
   trial  insofar  as  the  lower court decision appealed from (issued in
   the  name  of the Federal Court of Kirovskii District) was irregularly
   delivered  by  a  judge of another Federal Court (the Federal Court of
   Leninskii District). 

   a).  National  Courts'  failure  to  take into account the Applicant's
   arguments   presented   before   them  based  on  Article  11  of  the
   Convention.

   The  European Court of Human Rights has consistently confirmed that in
   order  to  meet  standards  of  fair  trial under the Article 6 of the
   Convention  "the  national  courts must [...] indicate with sufficient
   clarity   the   grounds  on  which  they  based  their  decision  (see
   Hadjianastassiou  v.  Greece,  judgment  of 16 December 1992, Series A
   no.  252,  para  33;  Van  de  Hurk v. the Netherlands, judgment of 19
   April  1994,  Series  A  no.  288  at  para  61; Hiro Balani v. Spain,
   judgment  of  09  December  1994, Series A no. 303-B, at para 28: Ruiz
   Torija  v.  Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-A, at
   para 30.). 

   Where  an  application is based on rights enshrined in the Convention,
   national  courts  are  obliged to "conduct a proper examination of the
   submissions,  arguments  and  evidence adduced by the parties" (Kraska
   v.  Switzerland,  judgment  of 19 April 1993, Series A no. 254-B, para
   30).  The  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  has  confirmed that the
   refusal  by  the  highest  court  to consider the main argument of the
   appeal  was  a  violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6
   of  the Convention (Hiro Balani v Spain, judgement of 9 December 1994,
   Series A, no. 303-B). 

   The  manifest  failure  to  examine  the  applicant's  main  arguments
   alleging  specific  Article  11  Convention  violations  - by both the
   Federal  Court  of  Kirovskii  District  and  Sverdlovsk  Oblast Court
   constitute  a  refusal or omission to "conduct a proper examination of
   the  submissions,  arguments  and evidence adduced by the parties." As
   such,  these respective failures by Russian national tribunals qualify
   as  two  separate  and  distinct violations of Article 6(1) Convention
   guarantees  to  a  fair  trial  in  respect of the applicant, Regional
   Branch.

   This  is  the firm position of the European Court of Human Rights that
   "Effective  implementation  of the European Convention on Human Rights
   at  national  level  is  crucial  for  the operation of the Convention
   system.  In  line  with  its  subsidiary  character  the Convention is
   intended  to  be applied first and foremost by the national courts and
   authorities"  (Foreword  by the Registrar on the occasion of the 100th
   issue   of   the  Case-Law  of  the  Court  Information  Note  No  100
   August/September 2007).

   b).  Consideration  of  the case by a court composed not in accordance
   with the law. 

   For  reasons  unexplained  by  the respondent, Russian Federation, the
   decision   issued  by  a  national  tribunal,  the  Federal  Court  of
   Kirovskii  District  (3  March  2005)  was  delivered  by the judge of
   another  federal  court  (Proniaeva  G.  A.  of  the  Federal Court of
   Leninskii  District).  This irregular composition of the tribunal when
   called  upon  to decide the applicant's rights raises concerns related
   to protections afforded by Article 6(1) of the Convention.

   In  a previous case against the Russian Federation, the European Court
   of  Human Rights affirmed that "the phrase "established by law" covers
   not  only  the  legal basis for the very existence of a "tribunal" but
   also  the  composition  of the bench in each case."(Posokhov v. Russia
   of 4 March 2003 at para. 37).

   While  the  ground  for  the  judge  of the Federal Court of Leninskii
   District  to  consider  the case duly brought before the Federal Court
   of  Kirovskii  District  was  an  order  No 49-k issued by the Head of
   Judicial   Department,   it  cannot  consequently  be  said  that  the
   irregular  composition  of  the Federal Court of Kirovskii District to
   have  been  done  in accordance with law. In accordance with Part 3 of
   Article  6  of  the  Law  of  the  Russian Federation On the Status of
   Judges  in  the  Russian  Federation  federal  judge is appointed to a
   particular  district court by a decree of the President of the Russian
   Federation  upon nomination made by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
   of   the   Russian   Federation,   and   upon  recommendation  by  the
   Qualification  Board  of Judges in accordance with public competition.
   Judge  Proniaeva  G.  A.  was  not  appointed  by the President of the
   Russian  Federation  to  be  a judge in the Federal Court of Kirovskii
   District  of  Yekaterinburg.  There  were  neither nomination by Chief
   Justice   of   the   Supreme  Court  of  the  Russian  Federation  nor
   recommendation  by  the  Qualification  Board  of  Judges  nor  public
   competition.

                On the basis of stated above we submit that:

   the  European  Court of Human Rights has jurisdiction ratione personae
   to  examine  the  application of the Sverdlovsk Oblast Regional Branch
   of  the  Political  Party  "Russian  Labour Party" on violation of its
   rights provided by Article 11 of the Convention;

   there is no ground for discontinuation of the proceedings under Clause
   "а" of Part 1 of Article 37 of the Convention;

   there  is no ground to consider the application inadmissible under the
   Part 3 of Article 35 of the Convention;

   the Russian Federation violated Article 11 of the Convention;

   the Russian Federation violated Article 6(1) of the Convention;

   it is not possible to settle the case at this stage of the proceedings
   due to the Russian Federation's refusal to settle the case.

                                  We ask:

   to  hold  that  the respondent State is to pay the applicant EUR 5,000
   (five thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

   to  hold  that  the  respondent  State  is  to pay the applicant legal
   expenses  which result due to participation of R. Kachanov, A. Burkov,
   representatives  of  the  applicant,  in  the  proceedings  before the
   European Court of Human Rights;

   The Head of the Sverdlovsk Oblast

   Regional Branch of the Political Party

   "Russian Labour Party" S. I. Beliaev

                                 Appendices

    1. The  Certificate  of  state  registration of the Sverdlovsk Oblast
       Regional  Branch  of  the  Political Party "Russian Labour Party",
       issued  by  Chief Bureau of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian
       Federation in Sverdlobsk Oblast on 19 September 2002 (No 3586).
    2. The  Certificate  of  state  registration of the Sverdlovsk Oblast
       Regional Branch of the Political Party "Russian Labour Party" as a
       legal  person,  issued by the Bureau of Tax Ministry in Sverdlovsk
       Oblast on 17 September 2002 (66 No 003024110).
    3. The  judgment  in absentia of 12 July 2007 by the Federal Court of
       Kirovskii  District  of Yekaterinburg on the case of the Bureau of
       the  Federal  Registration  Service  in  Sverdlovsk Oblast against
       Sverdlovsk  Regional  Branch  of  the  Party  of Russian Unity and
       Consent on suspension of the Party's activity as a legal person.
    4. The  decision  of 4 October 2006 by the Federal Court of Kirovskii
       District   of  Yekaterinburg  on  discontinuation  of  proceedings
       (opredelenie  ob  ostavlenii  zaiavlenia  bez  dvizheniia)  on the
       application  by  the Head of the Sverdlovsk Oblast Regional Branch
       of  the  Political  Party  "Russian Labour Party" S. I. Beliaev on
       recognition as unlawful of the decision of the Chief Bureau of the
       Federal  Registration  Service  of  the  Ministry  of  Justice  in
       Sverdlovsk Oblast on making changes in the incorporation documents
       of  the  Regional  branch  of  the  Political  Party  "Patriots of
       Russia".
    5. The  decision of 3 November 2006 by the Federal Court of Kirovskii
       District  of  Yekaterinburg  on  the  return of the application on
       recognition as unlawful of the decision of the Chief Bureau of the
       Federal  Registration  Service  of  the  Ministry  of  Justice  in
       Sverdlovsk Oblast on making changes in the incorporation documents
       of the Regional Branch of the Political Party "Patriots of Russia"
       to S. I. Beliaev.
    6. The  application  of  31  July  2007 by the Head of the Sverdlovsk
       Oblast  Regional  Branch  of  the  Political Party "Russian Labour
       Party"  S.  I.  Beliaev  before  the  Federal  Court  of Kirovskii
       District  of  Yekaterinburg  for recognition of unlawful action by
       the  Bureau  of  Federal Registration Service in Sverdlovsk Oblast
       for   registering   changes  in  incorporation  documents  of  the
       Sverdlovsk  Regional Branch of the Political Party "Russian Labour
       Party."
    7. The Power of Attorney.
    8. Review  of  the  relevant  case-law of the European Court of Human
       Rights on Article 11.
    9. The Russian language memorandum.

   8

   10.


Если вы хотите поддержать нашу деятельность, то введите в поле ниже сумму в рублях, которую вы готовы пожертвовать и кликните кнопку рядом:

рублей.      


Поделиться в социальных сетях:

  Diaspora*

Комментарии:

Добавить комментарий:

Ваше имя или ник:

(Войти? Зарегистрироваться? Забыли пароль? Войти под OpenID?)

Ваш e-mail (не обязателен, если укажете - будет опубликован на сайте):

Ваш комментарий:

Введите цифры и буквы с картинки (защита от спам-роботов):

        

 

 

15.05.2015г. распоряжением Минюста РФ СРОО "Сутяжник" включена в реестр иностранных агентов.