CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 février 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sF514A5EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:396pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .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 }   116 11.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Malysh and Others v. Russia (application no. 30280/03)   FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT A PROCEDURE FOR THE REDEMPTION OF BONDS VIOLATED HOLDERS’ PROPERTY RIGHTS   Unanimously   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights   Principal facts   The applicants are six Russian nationals who live in the Armur Region (Russia). They are holders of Urozhay-90 bonds, which were issued by the Government of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (RSFSR) with the aim 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 1992, the Russian Government introduced the possibility of buying out the bonds, and a significant number of bonds were bought out until these operations were stopped in 1996. In 1995, Parliament passed the Commodity Bonds Act which recognised the bonds as part of Russia’s internal debt and required 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 until 2009, when Parliament eventually passed the Buyout Act setting out a detailed procedure for these bonds.   During 2001 and 2002 the applicants all brought proceedings against the Russian Government and the Ministry of Finance, seeking compensation for the damage incurred through the State’s continued failure to effect payment under the bonds they respectively held. In each of the six sets of proceedings the applicants’ claims were dismissed by the domestic courts in 2003, essentially on the grounds that a federal law governing the procedure for the settlement of the debt arising out of the Urozhay-90 bonds had not yet been passed.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicants complained that the failure of the domestic authorities to discharge their obligations from the bonds violated their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26 June 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President, Nina Vajić (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russian Federation), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges,   and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   The Court agreed with the Russian Government that the applicants had not suffered a loss of property which the State had undertaken to compensate for. Nor could the bonds be used as a money substitute, as they only certified the right to purchase certain goods while the buyer still had to pay the full purchase price. However, the State had taken upon itself an obligation towards bearers of the bonds that had not been discharged for many years owing to the absence of a legislative framework for its implementation.   The Court noted that the principle of lawfulness in Article 1 Protocol No. 1 required States to ensure the legal and practical conditions for the implementation of the laws they had enacted. Following the enactment of the Commodity Bonds Act the applicants had a legitimate expectation of obtaining some form of redemption of their bonds. The Court was not persuaded by the Government’s argument that the recognition of the bonds as part of the State’s internal debt had been “mistaken”, as no explanation was offered as to why that alleged mistake had not been promptly identified and corrected through an appropriate amendment of the Commodity Bonds Act.   While the Court agreed that the reform of Russia’s economy and the state of its finances, might have justified limitations on rights of a purely pecuniary nature, it was not convinced that the restrictions on redemption of the bonds had been necessary to prevent excessive expenditure from the federal budget. A balancing exercise determining the exact amount required to settle the debt under the bonds in relation to other priority expenses would have been possible only with figures such as the quantity and total valuation of the remaining bonds. However, the inventory of the bonds had never been completed, and hence these figures could not have been known.   The Court therefore unanimously concluded that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded each applicant 1,800 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court declined to make an award in respect of pecuniary damage, noting that the applicants may now apply for redemption of their bonds under the 2009 Buyout Act.   *** The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( 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.