Общественное объединение "Сутяжник"

Главная страница

Новые документы и материалы

Меморандум по делу "Рогожников против России"







   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

   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.

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


Поделиться в социальных сетях:



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.