Новые документы и материалы
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.
Поделиться в социальных сетях: