24.05.2007
EUROPEAN COURT
OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
Application 10342/04
Rogozhnikov v. Russia
Additional observation of the Applicant on the application No.
10342/04 Rogozhnikov v. Russia
According to the Court's letter of 23 March 2007 requesting the
Applicant's additional observation on the above mentioned application,
the Applicant is stating the following.
The Applicant supports his statements on the violation of the right
guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 of Protocol 1 in
connection with non-execution of the national judgment in his favor.
1. The judgment of Talitsky District court of the Sverdlovskaya
Region of 29/08/2000 in favour of the Applicant has not been
enforced until now. The situation can be qualified as a violation
of Art. 6 of the Convention and Art. 1 of Protocol 1. The
Applicant is still a victim of the violation. Even though the
authorities will propose the enforcement of the national judgment
during the period of the considering the case by the ECHR, the
Applicant may still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article
6 S: 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol N 1.
As the ECHR reiterates in its practice, a decision or measure
favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive
him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have
acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded
redress for, the breach of the Convention. No measures mentioned above
were taken by the Russian authorities.
2. In its judgment in the case "Gizzatova v. Russia" the European
Court of Human Rights confirmed that the state is responsible for
the debts of the municipal enterprise arising from the judgments
in the applicant's favor. Municipal enterprise becoming the debtor
in the procedure of the judgment's enforcement failed to have
sufficient financial resources to pay the Applicant, and the
responsibility of the Russian Federation was not excluded. The
ECHR found the violation of Art. 6 and Art. 1 of Protocol 1.
3. The Applicant refers to the large number of cases on the violation
of these rights by Russia^, and states that he still has no
possibility to get execution of the nation judgment in his favor.
In such a way the Russian authorities deprived the judicial
protection of the Applicant of all useful
effect. The Applicant is concerned very much with the current system
of the enforcement of the national judgments in Russia when the debtor
has no sufficient finances for payments to the creditor. The lack of
system of the protection of creditor's rights in such situation
entails mass human rights infringements. In this situation the
Applicant is not interested in friendly settlement. Moreover, Russian
authorities failed to propose the Applicant the compensation for the
violation of his rights.
According to the mentioned above, the Applicant supports his
application and requests the Court to found the violation of Art. 6
and Art. 1 of the Protocol 1. He also supports his claim on the just
satisfaction.
24 May 2007
Authorized legal representative of the applicant Sergey Belyaev
___________________
^Wasserman v. Russia 18.11.2004, Gizzatova v. Russia 13.01.2005,
Petrushko v. Russia 24.02.2005 г., Koltsov v. Russia 24.02.2005 г.,
Gasan v. Russia 24.02.2005 г., Makarova and others v. Russia
24.02.2005 г., Poznarikhina v. Russia 24.02.2005 г., Russatommet v.
Russia 14.06.2005, Teteriny v. Russia 30.06.2005 г., Denisenkov v.
Russia 22.09.2005, Gerasimova v. Russia 13.10.2005, Bazhenov v. Russia
20.10.2005 г., Shvedov v. Russia 20.10.2005 г., Fedotov v. Russia
25.10.2005, Kukalo v. Russia 3.11.2005, Коrchagina and others v.
Russia 17.11. 2005 г., Gerasimenko v. Russia 17.11. 2005 г., Bobrova
v. Russia 17.11. 2005 г., Shestopalova and others v. Russia 17.11.2005
г., and many other judgments against Russia on this issue.
Добавить комментарий: