Information Note on the Court’s case-law 44
July 2002
Gayduk and Others v. Ukraine (dec.) - 54136/00, 49426/99, 51938/99 et al.
Decision 2.7.2002 [Section II]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions
Impossibility for applicants to obtain the indexed amounts of their savings in a national savings bank: inadmissible
The applicants had all signed savings agreements with the Savings Bank of Ukraine, whose deposits were guaranteed by the state. Following devaluation due to inflation and currency reform in 1966, the legislation adopted to regulate the repayment of deposits provided for indexation of the deposits in question according to a fixed ratio between the old and new currencies. The applicants applied to the national courts for repayment of all or part of their indexed deposits, denominated in the new currency. Their cases were dismissed at all levels of jurisdiction. In most of the decisions, the national courts held that the applicants did not have formal title to repayment as defined by the government, which was conditional upon claimants having reached the age of 80. The few applicants who had already reached that age were told that compensation on their deposits was possible only up to the amount of about 10 € and that no provision was made under current legislation for repayment of the full value of these deposits.
Locus standi: The widow and son of the two deceased applicants were entitled to pursue the application in their place (see Malhous v. Czech Republic (dec.), No. 33071/96, ECHR 2000‑XII).
Preliminary objection by the government (notion of victim): The question of whether an individual could claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention did not depend on the substance or content of the right at issue, but solely on its link with the person invoking it. In the instant case, the applicants’ personal interests (securing repayment of sums deposited in the national bank) were at issue and they were therefore “directly and personally affected” by the behaviour of the national authorities: objection dismissed.
Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No.1: In view of the applicants’ failure to exercise their right to withdraw the initial deposits paid into the bank together with the statutory interest, they could not be regarded as “victims”. With regard to the sums claimed by the applicants at domestic level, corresponding to the indexed value of their deposits, the right to indexation of savings was not, as such, guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No.1. This article was therefore inapplicable: incompatible ratione materiae.
Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 taken in isolation or in conjunction with Articles 14 and 13.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy