CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 avril 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s856DF1B6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10.5pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sBF01BB12 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt; list-style-position:inside } .s91636E87 { width:0.39pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE55A8C24 { width:16.4pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   Communicated on 5 April 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 74087/10 Vladimir Pimenovich VOLOKITIN against Russia and 11 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS 1 .     The cases concern the 1982 State premium internal loan bonds ( облигации государственного внутреннего выигрышного займа 1982   года ) which are held by the applicants. 2.     On 30 December 1980 the USSR Cabinet of Ministers decided to issue bonds of a premium internal loan to finance certain State programmes. The bonds had nominal values of 25, 50 and 100 Soviet roubles. Their period of circulation was set at twenty years, from 1 January 1982 to 1   January 2002 and they were redeemable at any time during the term of the loan with interest at three per cent per annum. Soviet citizens could either buy the 1982 bonds with their own money or obtain them in exchange for bonds from an earlier 1966 State premium internal loan. The 1982 bonds could be sold and redeemed throughout the entire period of circulation. 3 .     On 19 February 1992 the Government of the Russian Federation issued Resolution no. 97, recognising its succession in respect of the obligations of the USSR under the 1982 loan: “1.     To confirm succession of the Government of the Russian Federation in respect of obligations of the former USSR vis-à-vis Russian Federation citizens arising out of the bonds of the 1982 State internal premium loan. ... 6.     To give Russian Federation citizens who are holders of bonds of the 1982 State internal premium loan the right to exchange voluntary the bonds against State securities, including 1992 Russian internal premium loan bonds, shares in the Savings Bank of the Russian Federation, and also to credit the proceeds from sale of bonds to deposits open in the Savings Bank of the Russian Federation, from 1 October 1992...” 4.     By Resolution no. 549 of 5 August 1992, the Russian Government decided that from 1 October 1992 to 1 October 1993 the Savings Bank would be authorised to purchase 1982 bonds and exchange them for 1992 bonds at the rate of 160 Russian roubles for one bond with a nominal value of 100 roubles. 5.     Between 1995 and 2000, a series of Russian laws was adopted which provided for conversion of Soviet securities, including the 1982 loan bonds, into special Russian promissory notes. 6 .     On 10 May 1995 the Savings Protection Act was enacted. The State guaranteed the protection of Russian citizens’ savings, including their investments in State securities issued by the USSR and RSFSR before 1   January 1992 (section 1). Guaranteed savings were recognised as part of the internal State debt of the Russian Federation secured with the entirety of the assets available at the disposal of the Russian Government (sections 2 and 3). Soviet securities were to be converted into special promissory notes having a special promissory value (sections   5 and 7). Separate laws were to be enacted to determine the procedure for converting Soviet securities into Russian promissory notes and to determine their current value (section 12). 7 .     On 6 July 1996 the Promissory Value Act introduced the “promissory rouble” as the currency of special promissory notes (section   1). The actual value of the “promissory rouble” was to be determined as a proportion of the “control value” of the consumer goods basket and its “base value” at the prices that prevailed in the RSFSR in 1990 (section 2). The “control value” was to be calculated on a weekly basis by the State Statistical Service and the “base value” was to be fixed in a federal law (sections 3 to 7). The Government was to publish the current value of the “promissory rouble” within one month of the Act’s coming into force. 8 .     On 4 February 1999 the Base Value Act was enacted in pursuance of the Promissory Value Act. It set the “base value” at 464 Soviet roubles. Since 1 January 2003 its application has been suspended by a series of federal laws; most recently, for the period from 1 January 2017 until 1   January 2020 by Law no. 429-FZ of 19 December 2016. 9 .     On 12 July 1999 the Conversion Procedure Act confirmed that bonds of the 1982 State internal premium loan which are still in circulation in Russia were part of the guaranteed savings of Russian citizens (section 1). Sections 3 to   8 set out the general principles for conversion of the bonds into special promissory notes of the Russian Federation. The debt servicing procedure was to be governed by a separate federal law (section 10). Section 11 specified that the guarantees of the Savings Protection Act were fully applicable to securities which had not been converted into Russian promissory notes and that no statute of limitation applied to claims arising out of those securities. 10.     In pursuance of section 15 of the Conversion Procedure Act, on 29   January 2000 the Russian Government approved a regulation on the procedure for conversion of USSR securities into Russian promissory notes (Resolution no. 82). It set out that conversion into promissory notes would be performed by putting a stamp on the face of the bonds, which would certify the fact of conversion and also the nature, face value and interest rate of the new promissory note (paragraph 3). Converted bonds were to be entered into a register maintained by the Ministry of Finance (paragraph 4). The conversion was to be carried out by a designated lending agency, which the Ministry of Finance was to choose by tender (section 5). 11 .     Starting from 2003 and to the present day, the application and implementation of Resolution no. 82 has been repeatedly suspended by successive Government Resolutions; most recently, for the period until 1   January 2020, by Resolution no. 1437 dated 22 December 2016. 12.     The total value of the bonds owned by the applicants is listed in the Appendix. Their value is expressed either in Soviet roubles (SUR) – in which case it corresponds to their nominal value – or in “promissory roubles” as a result of their conversion under the Promissory Value Act. 13.     The applicants applied to Russian financial authorities and courts, seeking to obtain redemption of their bonds. Their claims were rejected, on procedural and substantive grounds. Mr Ruzanov’s claim was granted at first instance but later the judgment was overturned on appeal. COMPLAINT 14.     The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about a breach of their property rights by reason of the Russian authorities’ failure to fulfil their obligations under the 1982 State premium bonds.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     The applicants are requested to indicate the date on which they purchased, inherited or otherwise acquired the 1982 bonds which are currently in their possession, and the purchase price, if any, they paid.   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the Russian authorities’ failure to determine the procedure and conditions for implementation of the applicants’ entitlement to obtain some form of compensation for, or redemption of, the 1982 bonds (see Yuriy Lobanov v.   Russia , no. 15578/03, 2 December 2010)?   3.     Having regard to the applicants’ situation in the instant case and to the Court’s findings in previous cases concerning the Russian authorities’ failure to determine the procedure and conditions for implementation of the entitlement of the 1982 bond holders (see Yuriy Lobanov , cited above, and also Andreyeva v. Russia , no. 73659/10, 10   April 2012, and Fomin and Others v. Russia , no. 34703/04, 26 February 2013), is that situation indicative of a systemic problem and/or a structural deficiency of the Russian law warranting the application of the pilot-judgment procedure under Article 46 of the Convention (see, for general principles, Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §   180 et seq., 10 January 2012)?     Appendix No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Representative Place of practice Value of bonds (in “promissory roubles”(DOR) or Soviet roubles (SUR))     74087/10 24/11/2010 Vladimir Pimenovich VOLOKITIN 15/08/1947 Novoaltaysk     SUR 2,000 (application form of 18/01/2011) SUR 15,400 (submissions of 10/12/2013)   15410/11 14/02/2011 Svetlana Fedorovna ALEKSEYEVA 08/02/1959 Novoaltaysk     SUR 302,050 (purchased between 1985 and 1990)   72789/12 24/09/2012 Gennadiy Fedorovich LOSYAKOV 03/01/1935 Moscow Region   Nina Fedorovna LOSYAKOVA 31/05/1953 Arzamas     DOR 212,675   37098/13 04/05/2013 Yakhya Akhmedovich GALAYEV 03/09/1938 Ekazhevo     Mr Ü. Kılınç Strasbourg SUR 1,000,000   39017/13 21/05/2013 Yuriy Olegovich KOSACHEV 21/05/1950 Cheboksary         SUR 5,900   72539/13 25/10/2013 Vladimir Ivanovich VOLOGIN 22/01/1936 Moscow       SUR 2,000   79934/13 01/12/2013 Nikolay Nikolayevich GUSEV 13/04/1968 Moscow     DOR 534,225 (calculation of pecuniary damage) DOR 747,915 (application form)   1026/14 30/12/2013 Andrey Fedorovich RUZANOV 31/08/1962 Pryamaya Balka     Ms N. Ichim Strasbourg SUR 149,500   28411/14 23/09/2013 Aleksandr Valeryevich ZHELTOV 09/08/1973 Volsk   Mr A. Vologin Volsk SUR 25              32615/14 23/04/2014 Andrey Semenovich LAPTEV 03/11/1981 Krasnodar Region     SUR 400              27904/15 26/05/2015 Vyacheslav Nikolayevich SEVASTYANOV 11/12/1945 Sergiyev Posad     SUR 2,300 (purchased in 1991)              9395/16 03/02/2016 Yevgeniy Grigoryevich KARAGEZOV 30/08/1940 Moscow     SUR 66,425 (lists of bonds mention the names of Movladi, Borya, Masha, Igor, Olya and Trofi)