THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 51895/13
Natalya Vladimirovna SIDNEVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 March 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 July 2013,
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
1. The applicant, Ms Natalya Vladimirovna Sidneva, is a Russian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Volsk, Saratov Region. She was represented before the Court by Mr A.B. Vologin, a lawyer practising in Volsk, Saratov Region.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. On an unspecified date the applicant acquired twenty two 1992 State premium bonds (облигации Российского внутреннего выигрышного займа 1992 года) with the nominal value of 20,000 Russian roubles (RUB). The bonds were issued by the Russian Government in 1992 with the maturity period of 10 years. According to the issuance conditions the bonds could have been redeemed between 2002 and 2004 and this period was extended until 2005. In 2009 the State debt under 1992 State premium bonds was written off due to expiry of both the redemption period and the temporal limits for lodging any relevant lawsuits.
5. There is no evidence that the applicant had attempted to redeem her bonds before 2005 or lodged any civil action between 2005 and 2009.
6. In 2013 the applicant challenged in courts the alleged failure of the Government to adopt regulatory instruments and put in practice procedure for redemption of the 1992 State premium bonds. Her application was dismissed as inadmissible on 30 May 2013 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
COMPLAINT
7. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that her property rights had been violated by the Russian authorities’ failure to redeem her 1992 State premium bonds.
THE LAW
8. Alleging a violation of her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and referring to the Court’s judgment in the case Yuriy Lobanov v. Russia (no. 15578/03, 2 December 2010), the applicant essentially maintained that similarly to 1982 State premium bonds issued by the USSR Government her 1992 State premium bonds issued by the Russian Government should have been redeemed.
9. The Russian Government in their observations stated that the applicant’s situation had been significantly different from the one in the judgment Yuriy Lobanov, cited above. The regulatory framework and the procedure for redeeming the 1992 State premium bonds had been put in place by the Russian Government and the applicant herself had failed to redeem her bonds within the prescribed period between 2002 and 2005.
10. The Court highlights that in the judgment Yuriy Lobanov, cited above, it had found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention given acknowledgment by the Russian Government of its succession in respect of the obligations of the USSR under the 1982 State premium bonds. The Court concluded that the Russian authorities, by imposing successive limitations on the application of the legislative and regulatory provisions establishing the basis for the applicant’s right to redemption of the 1982 bonds and by failing for years to put into practice the procedure for implementation of that entitlement, kept the applicant in a state of uncertainty, which was incompatible in itself with the obligation arising under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to secure the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, notably with the duty to act in good time and in an appropriate and consistent manner where an issue of general interest is at stake (the judgment Yuri Lobanov, § 54, cited above).
11. Turning to the present case the Court does not reach the same conclusion. The materials available to the Court and the parties’ submissions indicate that the regulatory framework and the procedure for redeeming the 1992 State premium bonds had been sufficiently clear and functioning. The 1992 State bonds were issued 1992 with the maturity period of 10 years and they could have been redeemed between 2002 and 2005. The State debt in respect of unredeemed bonds was written off only in 2009 after expiry of the temporal limits for lodging any relevant lawsuits.
12. Nothing in the present case suggests that the applicant attempted to redeem her bonds before 2005 or lodged any civil action between 2005 and 2009, which had been clear time-limits established by the Russian Government is respect of 1992 State premium bonds.
13. The Court considers that the applicant had not found herself in any state of uncertainty concerning the procedure for redeeming her bonds or the applicable time-limits. In the light of the foregoing, the present application is inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 13 April 2017.
Fatoş AracıLuis López Guerra
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy