CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   733 08.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgment [1] Merzhoyev v. Russia (application no. 68444/01 )   DENIAL OF ACCESS TO SAVINGS DEPOSITED IN CHECHEN BANK   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Isa Israilovich Merzhoyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Moscow. Between 15 May 1990 and 20 February 1992, when a resident in Grozny, Chechnya, he made three deposits for him and his children with the Grozny branch of the Chechen Savings Bank, then a part of the USSR Savings Bank. In 1999 the applicant, who in the meantime had moved to Moscow following the hostilities in Chechnya, unsuccessfully requested the Savings Bank of Russia, successor of the USSR Savings bank, to transfer his deposits to a branch in Moscow.   Following the bank’s refusal to transfer his deposits, the applicant brought proceedings to restore and transfer his indexed deposits to the Moscow branch of the Savings Bank of Russia.. On 13 October 2000 Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow confirmed that the applicant had made three deposits with the Grozny branch of the Chechen Savings Bank and acknowledged “the existence of obligations” under the bank deposit agreements. Given that all branches of the Savings Bank of Russia in the Chechen Republic had been closed in 1996 and there was therefore “no mechanism which could enable the transfer of deposits”, the district court denied the applicant’s claim. The judgment was subsequently upheld by the Civil Section of the Moscow City Court.   The Russian Government submitted that the activities of the Chechen Savings Bank had been suspended in August 1996 in view of the difficult political, economic and social situation in Chechnya, and that it had been impossible to resume the bank’s activity given the pecuniary damage it had sustained and the loss of primary documents and official seals, which could have enabled the falsification of claims. It further claimed that from 2001 to 2002 the authorities had made a list of the former depositors of the Chechen Savings Bank who had produced their savings book. They submitted that the applicant could have registered himself on that list, and that it was now open to him to receive his deposits and the accrued interest. They further stated that under a governmental decree of 9 July 2004 he was entitled to compensation for inflation losses in respect of the deposits made prior to 20 June 1991.   The applicant did not dispute the Government’s claim that he was now entitled to have all his deposits repaid, but argued that by virtue of the governmental decree of 9 July 2004 the amount of his savings with compensation would only be equal to 1,054   Russian   roubles   (RUB), corresponding to 37.40   US dollars   (USD), whereas between 1990 and 1992 he had deposited an amount corresponding at that time to USD   14,832.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The case concerned the applicant’s temporary inability to withdraw his savings deposited in the Chechen branch of the Savings Bank of Russia and his complaint that his savings had significantly depreciated because of inflation. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 3 April 2001 and declared admissible on 17 January 2008.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nina Vajić (Croatia), President , Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), judges , and also André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The Court considered that on 5 May 1998, the date of ratification and entry into force of the Convention in respect of Russia, the applicant had at best a mere hope of recovering his savings rather than any actual interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Subsequently, however, the applicant’s claim had been sufficiently established by the domestic courts – at two levels of jurisdiction in 2000 – to constitute an asset within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Furthermore, the amount the applicant could legitimately have expected to receive should have been calculated on the basis of 2000 (rather than 1990 to 1992) when that new entitlement to his deposits had been created.   The applicant’s inability to make use of his deposits had been of a temporary nature, having lasted just over two years, and he was entitled, like any other depositor of the Savings Bank of Russia, to compensation for inflation losses with regard to his savings deposited before 20 June 1991. Given those factors as well as the difficulties encountered by the Russian Government on account of the hostilities in the Chechen Republic, the Court found that a fair balance had been struck between the general interest of the community and the applicant’s property interests. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in so far as the events after Russia’s ratification of the Convention were concerned.     ***   The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Nina Salomon (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.