Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 104
January 2008
Pupkov v. Russia - 42453/02
Decision 17.1.2008 [Section I]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Possessions
Inability to recover deposits from the Chechen Savings Bank, a part of the Savings Bank of Russia, following its liquidation: inadmissible
Prior to 1992 the applicant deposited his savings with the Chechen Savings Bank, then an integral part of the USSR Savings Bank. After the beginning of hostilities in Chechnya in 1994, he left Chechnya and settled in another region of Russia. In 2001 he applied to transfer his savings to the local branch of the Savings Bank of Russia, the successor to the USSR Savings Bank, but his request was refused on the ground that in 1996 the Chechen Savings Bank had been wound up. The courts dismissed his claim by reference to the political events in Chechnya and his failure to submit, in addition to his savings books, a document proving that his deposits had actually been transferred from Chechnya to another branch of the Savings Bank of Russia. In 2003, in accordance with a governmental decree, the Savings Bank of Russia commenced payment of compensation to the former depositors of the Chechen Savings Bank. The applicant did not apply for compensation.
Inadmissible: The decision of the Savings Bank of Russia to wind up the Chechen Savings Bank had served as the basis for the refusal to return the applicant’s deposits and had therefore constituted an interference with his property rights. That decision had pre-dated the ratification of the Convention by Russia on 5 May 1998. There was nothing to suggest the existence of a continuing situation, given that during the period between 1996 and 2003 the State had not adopted any legal acts confirming the applicant’s entitlement to his deposits. The governmental decree of February 2003 had not, as such, restored his entitlement to his savings but had merely acknowledged his right to compensation for his deposits. The alleged interference with the applicant’s property rights had amounted to the de facto deprivation of property and had been of an instantaneous nature, and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction ratione temporis to examine the applicant’s complaint in so far as it related to the events that had taken place prior to 5 May 1998. As regards the post-ratification period, given that the domestic courts had rejected his claims as unsubstantiated, the applicant had no “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: manifestly ill-founded.
© 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