FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 11375/05
by Ilja KIREEV
against Moldova and Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Giovanni Bonello,
Anatoly Kovler,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 March 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ilja Kireev, is a Russian national who was born in Konskoe and lives in Tighina/Bender (a town on the territory of Moldova, but which, since 1991, is under the control of the self-proclaimed “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” (the “MRT”, see more details in Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-31 and 87-91, ECHR 2004‑VII)).
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
Starting from 1962 the applicant deposited 16,582 Soviet roubles in the Savings Bank situated in Tighina/Bender. He claimed that the value of his personal savings, which he had deposited with the Savings Bank, had dropped significantly following economic reforms, and that the State had not properly discharged its obligation to revalue the deposits in the Savings Bank in order to offset the effects of inflation.
The applicant lodged an action with the “MRT Supreme Court” asking for compensation for the loss of value of his deposits. On 26 October 2004 the court informed him that it was not competent to deal with such actions and that he should address the regular “MRT courts”.
The applicant lodged an action with “Bender county court” (which is part of the “MRT court system”; there exists another Tighina/Bender county court under Moldovan jurisdiction and located in Varniţa village). On 21 December 2004 the court left the action unexamined, finding that it was incomplete since he had failed to fully identify the respondents and to provide evidence in support of his action, and omitted other necessary information. Following the applicant’s failure to submit the missing documents, on 17 January 2005 his action was returned to him unexamined.
The applicant complained to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Moldova, which on 6 July 2004 informed him of his right to lodge an action with the Tighina/Bender county court located in Varniţa village. On an unknown date the applicant lodged an action with that court. On 6 January 2005 the court informed him that his action was incomplete, in particular lacking the necessary documentary evidence and proof of payment of court fees. It appears that the applicant submitted no further documents to the Tighina/Bender District Court.
The applicant also complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Moldova about the loss of value of his deposits. His complaint was forwarded to the Tighina/Bender prosecutor’s office. On 29 March 2004 the Tighina/Bender prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that Moldova and the unrecognised “MRT” had separate budgetary systems and that he should address any claim for compensation to the “MRT authorities” under applicable local legislation.
The applicant states that in 2005 he attempted to obtain compensation for the loss of value of his deposits from a Russian bank in Kirov. This was refused since the law did not allow the payment of compensation to persons who had deposited money in the Savings Bank outside Russia.
B. Relevant domestic law
1. Moldovan legislation
As concerns Moldovan legislation regarding compensation for losses caused by inflation, on 12 December 2002 Parliament adopted the Act “Concerning the indexing of citizens’ savings in the Savings Bank of Moldova” (Legea nr.1530-XV din 12 decembrie 2002 privind indexarea depunerilor băneşti ale cetăţenilor în Banca de Economii) (hereinafter “the Moldovan Savings Act 2002”).
Article 1 of that law reads as follows:
“Article 1. Object of the law.
The present law establishes the State’s obligations in respect of citizens of the Republic of Moldova who had savings in the Savings Bank of Moldova as of 2 January 1992, and establishes the basic principles regarding the indexation, quantum and manner of payment of indexed amounts.”
2. Russian legislation
As concerns Russian legislation concerning compensation for losses caused by inflation, the Law on Revaluation and Protection of the Savings of Citizens of the Russian Federation was enacted on 10 May 1995 (Федеральный закон «О восстановлении и защите сбережений граждан Российской Федерации») (hereinafter “the Russian Savings Act 1995”).
Article 1 of that law reads as follows:
“Article 1. The State guarantees the restoration and preservation of the value of financial assets created by citizens of the Russian Federation by depositing monies with the Savings Bank of the Russian Federation (before that the State savings banks of USSR which worked on the territory of the Russian Soviet Socialist Federal Republic) before 20 June 1991; ...”
According to a letter from the Russian Ministry of Finance “Concerning the Transfer of Deposits from Countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States to the Russian Federation”, dated 20 April 1998 (no. 22-03-03):
“... Restoration shall apply to deposits, which by [20 June 1991] were kept in the Russian Savings Bank. However, the above-mentioned law [Russian Savings Act 1995] does not apply to deposits made with the savings banks of other States, which earlier were part of the former USSR.”
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that as a result of inflation the savings accumulated in his Savings Bank account have lost their purchasing power and that the State’s failure to discharge its obligation to restore the value of his bank deposits amounts to a deprivation of property.
THE LAW
The applicant submitted that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 caused by the effect that inflation had produced on his savings and about the State’s failure effectively to compensate him in this respect. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention reads as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
The Court notes first that the application was initially lodged against “the unrecognised Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” (the MRT) and that the applicant subsequently designated Russia as the defendant State.
The Court further notes that the applicant had deposited money in a bank which is currently situated on the territory of the Republic of Moldova and that he took certain steps before the Moldovan authorities with a view to obtain compensation. It considers, ex officio, that the application also needs to be examined in respect of Moldova.
The Court will therefore examine the application in respect of Moldova and Russia.
The Court considers that it is not necessary, in the present case, to decide whether Moldova, Russia or both can be held responsible for acts or omissions of the “MRT authorities”. Nor does it need to decide whether the applicant was under an obligation to exhaust domestic remedies available in “MRT” or in any of the two High Contracting Parties.
Even assuming that, in the circumstances of this case, any or both of the High Contracting Parties could be held responsible for acts or omissions by the “MRT authorities”, the Court considers that the applicant’s complaint is inadmissible.
The Court reiterates that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not oblige a State to maintain the purchasing power of sums deposited with financial institutions (see X. v. the Federal Republic of Germany, application no. 8724/79, Commission decision of 6 March 1980, Decisions and Reports 20, p. 226; Rudzińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 45223/99, ECHR 1999-VI; Gayduk and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 45526/99, ECHR 2002‑VI; and Appolonov v. Russia (dec.), no. 67578/01, 29 August 2002).
However, the Court notes that both Moldova and Russia have adopted legislation allowing partial compensation for the effects of inflation to be paid under certain conditions.
In respect of the complaint against Russia, the Court notes that:
(a) it is clear from the Russian Savings Acts 1995 and the explanatory letter from the Ministry of Finance, referred to above, that the Russian legislation allowed compensation only for deposits made with the savings bank working on the territory of the former Russian Soviet Socialist Federal Republic. The applicant, who had deposited money in a savings bank in the former Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic, was therefore not eligible to obtain any compensation from the Russian authorities under the law;
(b) even assuming that Russia could be held accountable for acts or omissions by the “MRT authorities”, it does not have an obligation, under the Convention, to enact a law providing for compensation for money deposited in banks located on the territory of the “MRT”, just as it was under no obligation to enact such legislation in respect of money deposited in banks on Russian territory.
In respect of Moldova, the Court notes that the applicable legislation clearly provided that compensation was payable only to citizens of Moldova. The applicant stated that he only had Russian citizenship. Accordingly, he did not qualify for compensation under Moldovan law.
It follows that under either Moldovan or Russian legislation the applicant had no right or legitimate expectation to obtain compensation. His application is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Fatoş AracıLech Garlicki
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy