FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 42453/02
by Anatoliy Andreyevich PUPKOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Loukis Loucaides,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoli Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 July 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Andreyevich Pupkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Georgiyevsk. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Deposit of savings and attempts to recover them
In the period between 1982 and 1991 the applicant, then a resident of Grozny, Chechnya, deposited 7,589.17 Soviet roubles in five savings accounts with the Grozny branch of the Chechen Savings Bank, which was an integral part of the USSR Savings Bank.
In late 1994 hostilities commenced in Chechnya.
In 1999 the applicant left Chechnya because of the fighting and settled in the town of Georgiyevsk in the Stavropol Region. According to the applicant, shortly after his arrival he submitted his savings books (сберегательные книжки) to the Georgiyevsk branch of the Savings Bank of Russia and requested the latter to transfer and repay his deposits and those of his late father. The bank registered the applicant’s savings books, but refused to transfer his savings, referring to a telegram from the Central Bank of Russia which had imposed a ban on any transactions in respect of the deposits made with the Chechen Savings Bank.
On 12 July 2001 the applicant complained in writing to the central office of the Savings Bank of Russia and to its Georgiyevsk branch.
In letters of 2 August 2001 the central office and the Georgiyevsk branch of the Savings Bank informed the applicant that as a result of the events in the Chechen Republic, the Chechen Savings Bank had lost a considerable number of blank savings books and official seals, which could enable the falsification of claims for the reimbursement of deposits. In these circumstances, in 1996 the Savings Bank of Russia suspended all transactions in respect of deposits made in Chechnya, and then wound up the Chechen Savings Bank. Moreover, the Ministry of Finance did not allot funds for the reimbursement of the deposits made in Chechnya, “in the absence of guarantees that those funds would be used for specified purposes”.
2. Court proceedings
Following the bank’s refusal, the applicant filed a court complaint, seeking to have his savings transferred to the Georgiyevsk branch of the Savings Bank of Russia and repaid to him.
On 11 December 2001 the Georgiyevsk Town Court rejected the applicant’s claims as unfounded. The court refused to confirm that the applicant was entitled to the reimbursement of his deposits by the Georgiyevsk branch of the Savings Bank of Russia, noting that under relevant regulations the mere fact that an individual had savings books was insufficient to confirm that a particular amount of money had been deposited in his account and that, as well as the savings books, the applicant should have supplied a document proving that his deposits had been transferred from the Chechen Savings Bank to another branch of the Savings Bank of Russia, which the applicant had failed to do.
On 23 January 2002 the Civil Section of the Stavropol Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment on appeal, having noted that the Savings Bank of Russia had defaulted on its obligation to repay the applicant’s savings because of force majeure, namely due to the hostilities in Chechnya and the winding up of the Chechen Savings Bank. The court also noted that as soon as the Savings Bank of Russia reached agreement with the Government of Russia, it would pay back the funds of those individuals who were registered on the list of former depositors of the Chechen Savings Bank, and that it was open to the applicant to apply for registration on that list.
The applicant’s attempts to contest the above court decisions by way of supervisory review proved unsuccessful.
3. Further developments
In their memorial of 25 September 2005 the Government informed the Court that between 21 January and 22 April 2002 the Government of the Chechen Republic within the territory of this republic, and the branches of the Savings Bank of Russia in other regions of Russia, had made a list of the former depositors of the Chechen Savings Bank who had produced their savings books (сберегательные книжки).
On 15 April 2003 the Savings Bank of Russia commenced payment of compensation to those included on the list. As provided by governmental decree no. 117 of 19 February 2003, this procedure was applied in respect of savings deposited with the Chechen Savings Bank prior to 20 June 1991.
From 1 October 2003 until 31 March 2004 the authorities made an additional list of former depositors of the Chechen Savings Bank. In the Government’s submission, “repayment of deposits to those included in the additional list would be made in the near future”.
From 2003 onwards the Russian Government adopted an annual decree which reproduced the provisions of their decree no. 117 of 19 February 2003 concerning compensation of deposits made prior to 20 June 1991 in the territory of the Chechen Republic.
According to the Government, the applicant was put on the list of the former depositors of the Chechen Savings Bank, but did not apply for the repayment of his deposits until the present moment.
In letters of 2 December 2005 and 21 February 2006 the Georgiyevsk branch of the Savings Bank of Russia informed the applicant that he could apply for his deposits, the accrued interest and compensation, upon presenting his identity documents and submitting his savings books, which would be retained by the bank after the repayment. According to the letters, the applicant would be furnished with a certificate providing the details of calculation of the sum repaid.
B. Relevant domestic law
In August 1996 the President of the Management Board of the Savings Bank of Russia (Председатель правления Сберегательного Банка России) ordered that all operations in respect of deposits with the Chechen Savings Bank be suspended until further notice.
By virtue of decision no. 127 of the Management Board of the Savings Bank of Russia dated 16 December 1996 the branches of the Savings Bank of Russia on the territory of the Chechen Republic were wound up and removed from the State Register of Lending Agencies. Powers of attorney issued to the heads of those branches were revoked and annulled.
By section 12 of decree no. 117 “On payment to certain categories of citizens of the Russian Federation in 2003 of preliminary compensation (compensation) in respect of deposits with the Savings Bank of the Russian Federation and certain insurance organisations” dated 19 February 2003 the Government of Russia entitled the former depositors of the Chechen Savings Bank to compensation for deposits they had made prior to 20 June 1991. In particular, individuals who lived outside the territory of the Chechen Republic could obtain compensation in those branches of the Savings Bank which had put them on the list of former depositors of the Chechen Savings Bank.
Section 16 of governmental decree no. 258 “On payment to certain categories of citizens of the Russian Federation in 2005 of preliminary compensation (compensation) in respect of deposits with the Savings Bank of the Russian Federation and certain insurance organisations” dated 25 April 2005 reproduces the provisions of section 12 of decree no. 117 of 19 February 2003 concerning compensation of deposits made prior to 20 June 1991 in the territory of the Chechen Republic.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about his inability to withdraw his savings deposited with the Grozny branch of the Chechen Savings Bank from the Savings Bank of Russia. He claimed in this connection that his savings had been de facto expropriated by the State.
THE LAW
The applicant complained that he was unable to have his deposits in the Savings Bank of Russia repaid, referring to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which 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.”
A. Submissions by the parties
1. The Government
The Government argued that the present application was incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, as the State was not responsible for the Savings Bank of Russia, which was now an open joint stock company.
The Government further 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 activity of the bank, as it had sustained significant pecuniary damage and had lost a considerable number of its primary documents and official seals, which could have enabled the falsification of claims for reimbursement of deposits made with it. In these circumstances, in December 1996 the Management Board of the Savings Bank of Russia had taken a decision to wind up the Chechen Savings Bank. The Government thus argued, referring to these facts, that the Savings Bank of Russia had had no realistic opportunity to restore and transfer the applicant’s savings deposited in the Chechen Savings Bank to the Georgiyevsk branch of the Savings Bank of Russia, and that it had had no intention to deprive the applicant of his possessions.
The Government also submitted that at present it was open to the applicant to receive his deposits and the accrued interest, taking into account the redenomination of 1998, in the Georgiyevsk branch of the Savings Bank of Russia on condition he submitted his savings books. They also stated that, in accordance with governmental decree no. 258 of 27 April 2005, the applicant was entitled to compensation in respect of all his deposits as they had been made before 20 June 1991.
The Government thus argued that the interference with the applicant’s right to withdraw his savings had been of a temporary nature and in the public interest, given the difficult situation in the Chechen Republic in the middle of the 1990s and the possibility of falsification of claims for reimbursement of deposits made with the Chechen Savings Bank.
They also referred to the case of Appolonov v. Russia ((dec.), no. 67578/01, 29 August 2002) stating that the State was under no obligation to compensate for losses caused by inflation.
2. The applicant
The applicant disagreed with the Government and maintained his complaint. He insisted that the State was responsible for the Savings Bank of Russia, given in particular that the reimbursement of deposits made in the Savings Bank was governed by legal instruments adopted by the Government of Russia.
The applicant further argued that under the contract of bank deposit between him and the Savings Bank of Russia, the latter had been under obligation to repay his savings on his demand, and that the bank’s refusal to do so had amounted to grave and unjustified interference with his rights secured by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
B. The Court’s assessment
The Court does not find it necessary to examine the entirety of the arguments advanced by the parties since the application is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.
The Court observes at the outset that in 1996 the management bodies of the Savings Bank of Russia decided to ban for an indefinite period any operations in respect of deposits made with the Chechen Savings Bank, and then to wind it up. Those decisions, which both pre-dated the ratification of the Convention by Russia on 5 May 1998 and de facto extinguished the right of the depositors of the Chechen Savings Bank to dispose of their funds, constituted an interference with the applicant’s property rights, as they served as the basis for the Savings Bank’s repeated refusal to return the applicant’s deposits (see Cherkashin v. Russia (partial decision), no. 7412/02, 30 March 2006).
The Court recalls in this connection that, as a general rule, it has no jurisdiction ratione temporis in respect of events that occurred before the ratification of the Convention or its Protocols by the respondent State. It may, however, have regard to facts prior to ratification inasmuch as they could be considered to have created a situation extending beyond that date or may be relevant for the understanding of facts occurring after that date (see Broniowski v. Poland (dec.) [GC], no. 31443/96, ECHR 2002-...). In particular, the Court has found that it has temporal competence to examine the cases where, having interfered with the applicant’s property rights before the ratification of the Convention, the respondent State then recognised the applicant’s entitlement to the property in question by legal acts that remained in force on the date of the State’s ratification of the Convention, or were adopted after that date (see Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 125, ECHR 2004-..., and Kovačić and others v. Slovenia (dec.), nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/98, 9 October 2003 and 1 April 2004).
In the present case, however, there is nothing to suggest the existence of any continuing situation, given that during the period between 1996 and 19 February 2003 the State did nothing to ratify the applicant’s claim to have his deposits paid out to him, either by adopting legal acts to the effect that the applicant’s entitlement to his deposits remained intact, or in any other way, whilst decree no. 117 adopted on the latter date did not, as such, restore the applicant’s entitlement to his savings but merely acknowledged his right to compensation for his deposits. The Court thus considers that the alleged interference with the applicant’s property rights amounted to the de facto deprivation of property and was of an instantaneous nature, and therefore the Court has no jurisdiction ratione temporis to examine the applicant’s complaint in so far as it relates to the events that took place prior to 5 May 1998 (see Cherkashin, cited above).
As regards the post-ratification period, the Court first notes that between 5 May 1998 and 19 February 2003, in the absence of any legal acts enabling reimbursement or compensation of the deposits in the former Chechen Savings Bank, given that the domestic courts in the 2001 proceedings found that the applicant had failed to substantiate his claims, he had no entitlement to the deposits. Accordingly, the applicant had no “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, 28 September 2004).
On 19 February 2003 the Russian Government passed a decree that entitled the former depositors of the Chechen Savings Bank to receive compensation in respect of their deposits, and therefore it is now open to the applicant to apply for this compensation, which so far he has failed to do. In so far as his unwillingness might be explained by depreciation of the value of his savings or an insufficient amount of compensation offered, 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 Appolonov v. Russia (dec.), no. 67578/01, 29 August 2002), nor does it guarantee, as such, the right to acquire property (see, in a similar context, Grishchenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 75907/01, 8 July 2004).
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded as a whole and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention;
Declares the application inadmissible.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy