CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 26 septembre 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s5EE9E87A { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s8567D65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-36pt } .sCFF4213 { width:101.8%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s2A2B5104 { width:26.52%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sD23BBC5A { width:12.72%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7A4D0ABD { width:15.56%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s2BE7C3C2 { width:19.8%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE967E4A2 { width:25.4%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s499CF88A { width:26.52%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s826CC5F { width:12.72%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBAB1E5CE { width:15.56%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4C9A1D65 { width:19.8%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EC490AF { width:25.4%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCC5122F2 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2C0BCC49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:9pt } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s33510801 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s7FB47CD0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)134 [1]   Malysh and two other cases against the Russian Federation   Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights   (Malysh and others, application No. 30280/03, judgment of 11/02/2010, final on 28/06/2010 Tronin, application No. 24461/02, judgment of 18/03/2010, final on 04/10/2010 SPK Dimskiy, application No. 27191/02, judgment of 18/03/2010, final on 04/10/2010)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgments in the Malysh and others, SPK Dimskiy and Tronin cases, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that these cases concern unjustified interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on account of the authorities’ failure to set up a procedure for implementation of an entitlement to seek redemption of the Urozhay-90 bonds (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) (see details in the Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures it has taken to comply with the Court’s judgment in view of its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that the respondent State has paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided for in the judgments (see details in the Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:   - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)134   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in Malysh and two other cases against the Russian Federation     Introductory summary of the cases   These cases concern an unjustified interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on account of the State’s failure over several years to adopt legislation providing for the procedure of the settlement of the debt arising out of the Urozhay-90 bonds. These bonds were issued by the Government of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (RSFSR) in order to encourage agricultural workers to sell produce to the State in exchange for the right to priority purchasing of consumer goods in high demand at the time (such as refrigerators, washing machines and cars).   In 1995, Parliament passed the Commodity Bonds Act which recognised the bonds as part of Russia’s internal debt and invited the government to adopt a programme for the settlement of this debt. Although in 2000 such a programme was presented for other types of bonds, the application of the Act was repeatedly suspended as regards the Urozhay-90 bonds. It was only in 2009 that the Parliament eventually passed the Buyout Act setting out a detailed procedure for these bonds.   The Court noted that since the adoption in 1995 of the Commodity Bonds Act, the applicants had a legitimate expectation of obtaining some form of redemption of their bonds.   The Court consequently considered that the Russian authorities, by imposing successive limitations on the application of the legislative provision establishing the basis for the applicants’ right to redemption of the Urozhay-90 bonds and by failing for years to legislate on the procedure for implementation of that entitlement, kept the applicants in a state of uncertainty, which was incompatible in itself with the obligation to secure the peaceful enjoyment of possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Name and application number Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total Malysh and others (30280/03) -- EUR 1 800, to each of the six applicants EUR 2 000 EUR 12 800 Paid on 27/01/2011 Tronin (24461/02) -- EUR 1 800 -- EUR 1 800 Paid on 03/12/2010 SPK Dimskiy (27191/02) -- -- EUR 1 000 EUR 1 000 Paid on 04/05/2011   The just satisfaction was paid under conditions accepted by the applicants in the case of Malysh and others and SPK Dimskiy.   b) Individual measures   The European Court awarded non-pecuniary damage in the cases of Malysh and others and Tronin. In the case of SPK Dimskiy, the Court considered that, in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the applicant company’s status as a legal entity, the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage. Accordingly, it dismissed the applicant’s claim in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage in that case. As regards pecuniary damage, the European Court dismissed the applicants’ claims in all these cases, noting that they could apply for redemption of their bonds under the 2009 Act. Amongst the applicants, only Mr   Malysh availed himself of that possibility and received moneys for his bond, in November 2010. The other applicants have not submitted any claims following the judgment of the European Court.   Consequently, no further individual measures appear to be necessary.     II.   General measures   Legislative and regulatory measures   On 19 July 2009, a federal law governing the procedure for the buyout of the Urozhay-90 bonds was adopted (no. 200-FZ – “the Buyout Act”). It established that holders of the bonds would be paid, in the period between 15 December 2009 and 31 December 2010, an amount equivalent to the nominal value of the bonds divided by 1 000 (section 2). The law also amended the Commodity Bonds Act by removing the reference to the Urozhay-90 bonds from its Section 1.   On 15 September 2009, the government issued Resolution No. 749, setting out the detailed procedure for payments in exchange for the bonds in question.   In its Malysh and others judgment, the European Court noted with reference to the above legislative and regulatory measures adopted that “this welcome development has put an end to the situation of legal uncertainty which was the main subject of the applicants’ complaint” (see §69 of the judgment).   Publication and dissemination   All the judgments were disseminated amongst the competent authorities and published in Russian in the Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights.   In the circumstances, no further general measures appear necessary.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that no more individual measures are required and that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that the Russian Federation has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.