Законы России
 
Навигация
Популярное в сети
Курсы валют
16.08.2016
USD
64.21
EUR
71.73
CNY
9.67
JPY
0.64
GBP
82.94
TRY
21.72
PLN
16.8
 

ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ ЕВРОПЕЙСКОГО СУДА ПО ПРАВАМ ЧЕЛОВЕКА ОТ 17.11.2005 ДЕЛО ШЕСТОПАЛОВА И ДРУГИЕ (SHESTOPALOVA AND OTHERS) ПРОТИВ РОССИИ [АНГЛ.]

Текст документа с изменениями и дополнениями по состоянию на ноябрь 2007 года

Обновление

Правовой навигатор на www.LawRussia.ru

<<<< >>>>

                                
                    EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
                                   
                             FIRST SECTION
                                   
               CASE OF SHESTOPALOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
                      (Application No. 39866/02)
                                   
                             JUDGMENT <*>
                                   
                       (Strasbourg, 17.XI.2005)
                                   
   --------------------------------
       <*>  This  judgment will become final in the circumstances  set
   out  in  Article  44 з 2 of the Convention. It may  be  subject  to
   editorial revision.
   
       In the case of Shestopalova and Others v. Russia,
       The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting  as
   a Chamber composed of:
       Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
       Mr L. Loucaides,
       Mr P. Lorenzen,
       Mrs {N. Vajic} <*>,
   --------------------------------
       <*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
   латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
   
       Mrs S. Botoucharova,
       Mr A. Kovler,
       Mr K. Hajiyev, judges
       and Mr S. Quesada, Deputy Section Registrar,
       Having deliberated in private on 25 October 2005,
       Delivers  the  following judgment, which was  adopted  on  that
   date:
                                   
                               PROCEDURE
                                   
       1. The case originated in an application (No. 27295/03) against
   the  Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article  34  of
   the  Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and  Fundamental
   Freedoms  ("the  Convention")  by  thirty-eight  Russian  nationals
   listed  in  appendix  1 on 23 September 2002. The  applicants  were
   represented   by  Mr  V.  Tarnarutskiy,  a  lawyer  practising   in
   Voronezh.
       2.  The  Russian Government ("the Government") were represented
   by  Mr  P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at  the
   European Court of Human Rights.
       3.  On  8  March  2004  the Court decided  to  communicate  the
   complaint  concerning the non-enforcement of the judgments  in  the
   applicants'  favour  to  the Government. Under  the  provisions  of
   Article 29 з 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the  merits
   of the application at the same time as its admissibility.
                                   
                               THE FACTS
                                   
                   I. The circumstances of the case
                                   
       4. The applicants are residents of Voronezh.
       5.  They are in receipt of welfare payments for their children.
   In  1999  -  2002  the applicants brought separate  sets  of  civil
   proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears  in
   those payments.
       6.  On  the  dates  set out in appendix 1 the  domestic  courts
   granted  the  applicants' claims and ordered the welfare  authority
   to  pay  them  the respective amounts. The enforcement  proceedings
   were commenced accordingly.
       7.  Subsequently  the  bailiffs  discontinued  the  enforcement
   proceedings  in respect of the judgments in the applicants'  favour
   and  returned the writs of execution to them referring to the  lack
   of the debtor's funds.
       8.  In 2001 - 2002 the applicants brought several sets of civil
   proceedings  against  private  banks  in  Voronezh  in  which   the
   defendant authority had its accounts, claiming the recovery of  the
   awarded  amounts.  The  domestic courts rejected  those  claims  as
   unfounded.
       9.  In  June  2004  the applicants were paid  the  amounts  due
   pursuant to the writs of execution.
                                   
                       II. Relevant domestic law
                                   
       10. Section 9 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings  of
   21  July 1997 provides that a bailiff's order on the institution of
   enforcement  proceedings must fix a time-limit for the  defendant's
   voluntary  compliance with a writ of execution. The time-limit  may
   not  exceed  five  days. The bailiff must also warn  the  defendant
   that  coercive  action will follow, should the  defendant  fail  to
   comply with the time-limit.
       11.  Under  Section 13 of the Law, the enforcement  proceedings
   should  be completed within two months of the receipt of  the  writ
   of enforcement by the bailiff.
                                   
                                THE LAW
                                   
          I. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
           and Article 1 of Protocl No. 1 to the Convention
                                   
       12.   The   applicants  complained  that  the  prolonged   non-
   enforcement of the judgments in their favour violated their  "right
   to  court"  under  Article 6 з 1 and their right  to  the  peaceful
   enjoyment  of  possessions as guaranteed by Article 1  of  Protocol
   No.  1  to  the Convention. These Articles, in so far as  relevant,
   read as follows:
       Article 6 з 1
       "In  the  determination of his civil rights and obligations...,
   everyone   is   entitled   to  a  fair...  hearing...   by   [a]...
   tribunal..."
       Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
       "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. Admissibility
                                   
       13.  The Government informed the Court that the authorities  of
   the  Voronezh Region had attempted to secure a friendly  settlement
   of  the  case  and that the applicants had refused  to  accept  the
   friendly  settlement on the terms proposed by the  authorities.  By
   reference  to this refusal and to the fact that, in any event,  the
   judgments  in  the  applicants'  favour  had  been  enforced,   the
   Government  invited  the Court to strike out  the  application,  in
   accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
       14.  The  applicants disagreed with the Government's  arguments
   and   maintained   their  complaints.  As  regards   the   friendly
   settlement  proposal, the applicants claimed that the  offer  which
   the  authorities of the Voronezh Region had made to them  had  been
   unacceptable  and  that the authorities had refused  to  reach  the
   friendly settlement on the applicants' terms.
       15. The Court firstly observes that the parties were unable  to
   agree  on the terms of a friendly settlement of the case. The Court
   recalls that under certain circumstances an application may  indeed
   be  struck out of its list of cases under Article 37 з 1 (c) of the
   Convention  on  the  basis  of  a  unilateral  declaration  by  the
   respondent  Government even if the applicant wishes the examination
   of  the  case to be continued (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC],  No.
   26307/95, з 76, ECHR 2003-...).
       16. On the facts, the Court observes that the Government failed
   to  submit  with the Court any formal statement capable of  falling
   into  that  category and offering a sufficient  basis  for  finding
   that  respect  for human rights as defined in the  Convention  does
   not  require  the  Court to continue its examination  of  the  case
   (see,  by  contrast,  to  Akman  v.  Turkey  (striking  out),   No.
   37453/97, зз 23 - 24, ECHR 2001-VI).
       17. As regards the Government's argument that the judgments  in
   question  have already been enforced, the Court considers that  the
   mere fact that the authorities complied with the judgments after  a
   substantial  delay cannot be viewed in this case  as  automatically
   depriving   the  applicants  of  their  victim  status  under   the
   Convention (see, e.g., Petrushko v. Russia, No. 36494/02, з 16,  24
   February 2005).
       18. In the light of the above considerations, the Court rejects
   the  Government's  request  to strike  the  application  out  under
   Article 37 of the Convention.
       19.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-
   founded within the meaning of Article 35 з 3 of the Convention.  It
   further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds.  It
   must therefore be declared admissible.
                                   
                               B. Merits
                                   
       20.  The Government advanced no arguments on the merits of  the
   application.
       21. The applicants maintained their complaint.
       22.  The  Court observes that the judgments in the  applicants'
   favour  remained  inoperative for several years.  No  justification
   was advanced by the Government for the respective delays.
       23. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 з  1
   of  the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising
   issues  similar to the ones in the present case (see,  among  other
   authorities,  Burdov v. Russia, No. 59498/00,  ECHR  2002-III  and,
   more  recently, Petrushko, cited above, or Poznakhirina v.  Russia,
   No. 25964/02, 24 February 2005).
       24.  Having  examined the material submitted to it,  the  Court
   notes  that the Government did not put forward any fact or argument
   capable  of  persuading it to reach a different conclusion  in  the
   present  case.  Having regard to its case-law on the  subject,  the
   Court  finds  that  by  failing  for  years  to  comply  with   the
   enforceable  judgments  in  the  applicants'  favour  the  domestic
   authorities  prevented them from receiving  the  money  they  could
   reasonably have expected to receive.
       25. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 з 1  of
   the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
                                   
            II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
                                   
       26.  The  applicants  also complained  that  they  were  denied
   effective remedies under Article 13 of the Convention in  that  the
   domestic  courts  dismissed  their  property  claims  against   the
   private banks of Voronezh. This Article provides as follows:
       "Everyone  whose  rights and freedoms as  set  forth  in  [the]
   Convention  are  violated shall have an effective remedy  before  a
   national  authority  notwithstanding that the  violation  has  been
   committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
       27.  The  Court  observes  that the  applicants  complained  in
   essence  about  the  unsuccessful outcome of the court  proceedings
   against  the  banks.  It  recalls  in  this  connection  that   the
   effectiveness  of a remedy for the purposes of Article  13  of  the
   Convention  does  not  depend  on the  certainty  of  a  favourable
   outcome  for  the applicant (see Swedish Engine Drivers'  Union  v.
   Sweden,  judgment of 6 February 1976, Series A No.  20,  p.  18,  з
   50).  On  the  basis of the materials submitted by the  applicants,
   the  Court  notes  that  they were able to avail  themselves  of  a
   remedy  under national law, namely instituted the civil proceedings
   against  the banks. Moreover, the applicants were able  to  present
   their  arguments as they wished, and the judicial authorities  gave
   those  arguments  due consideration. The fact that the  applicants'
   claims  were rejected does not indicate that the remedy in question
   was ineffective in the circumstances of the present case.
       28.  It follows that this part of the application is manifestly
   ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 з 3 of the  Convention
   and  must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 зз 3 and  4  of
   the Convention.
                                   
           III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
                                   
       29. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
       "If  the  Court  finds that there has been a violation  of  the
   Convention  or  the Protocols thereto, and if the internal  law  of
   the   High   Contracting  Party  concerned  allows   only   partial
   reparation  to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford  just
   satisfaction to the injured party."
                                   
                               A. Damage
                                   
       30.  The applicants did not specify the amounts they sought  to
   obtain  for  pecuniary damage, but requested the  Court  to  adjust
   their  judgment debts by the inflation coefficient  of  136%.  They
   submitted  a  certificate of the Department of  Statistics  of  the
   Voronezh Region which represented the inflation rate in the  period
   between  January  1995 and June 2004. The applicants  also  claimed
   each 12,000 euros (EUR) as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
       31.   The  Government  contested  the  applicants'  claims   as
   excessive  and unjustified. The Government considered  that  should
   the  Court  find  a  violation in this case that  would  in  itself
   constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
       32.  The  Court finds that some pecuniary loss must  have  been
   occasioned  by  reason  of the period that elapsed  from  the  time
   between  the  entry  into force of the judgments  in  question  and
   their   subsequent  enforcement  (see,  e.g.,  Poznakhirina,  cited
   above,  з  34  and Makarova and others v. Russia, No.  7023/03,  24
   February  2005, з 38). Having regard to the calculations  presented
   by  the  applicants,  the  inflation rates  in  Russia  during  the
   relevant  period  and  given  that  that  the  Government  did  not
   dispute,  as  such,  the  method of  calculation  employed  by  the
   applicants, the Court accepts the applicants' claims in respect  of
   pecuniary  damage  and  awards  them  the  respective  amounts   as
   indicated in appendix 2.
       33.  As regards the compensation for non-pecuniary damage,  the
   Court  would  not exclude that the applicants might  have  suffered
   distress  and  frustration resulting from  the  State  authorities'
   failure  to enforce the judgments in their favour. However,  having
   regard  to  the  nature of the breach in this case and  making  its
   assessment  on  an  equitable basis, the Court considers  that  the
   finding  of  a  violation  constitutes in  itself  sufficient  just
   satisfaction  for  any  non-pecuniary  damage  sustained   by   the
   applicants  (see, in a similar context, Poznakhirina, cited  above,
   з 35).
                                   
                         B. Costs and expenses
                                   
       34.  The  applicants also claimed each 10%  of  their  judgment
   debts  for  the costs and expenses incurred before the  Court,  and
   notably  in  respect  of legal fees paid to  Mr  Tarnarutskiy.  The
   latter  submitted  a  certificate in which he  confirmed  that  the
   applicants incurred the costs alleged.
       35.  The Government considered that the documents submitted  by
   the  applicants did not indicate that the applicants  had  incurred
   any costs.
       36. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled
   to  reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so  far  as  it
   has  been  shown  that  these have been  actually  and  necessarily
   incurred  and  were reasonable as to quantum. In the present  case,
   regard  being  had  to the information in its  possession  and  the
   above  criteria,  the Court considers it reasonable  to  award  the
   applicants  a  total sum of EUR 500 covering costs in the  domestic
   proceedings and for the proceedings before the Court, plus any  tax
   that may be chargeable on that amount.
                                   
                          C. Default interest
                                   
       37.  The  Court  considers  it  appropriate  that  the  default
   interest  should  be  based on the marginal  lending  rate  of  the
   European  Central  Bank, to which should be added three  percentage
   points.
                                   
               FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
                                   
       1. Declares the complaint concerning the non-enforcement of the
   judgments  in  the applicants' favour admissible and the  remainder
   of the application inadmissible;
       2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6  of  the
   Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
       3. Holds
       (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within
   three  months from the date on which the judgment becomes final  in
   accordance with Article 44 з 2 of the Convention:
       (i) the respective amounts set out in appendix 2 in respect  of
   pecuniary damage;
       (ii) a total sum of EUR 500 (five hundred euros) in respect  of
   costs  and expenses, to be converted into the national currency  of
   the  respondent  State  at  the rate  applicable  at  the  date  of
   settlement;
       (iii) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
       (b)  that  from the expiry of the above-mentioned three  months
   until  settlement  simple interest shall be payable  on  the  above
   amounts  at  a  rate  equal to the marginal  lending  rate  of  the
   European  Central  Bank  during  the  default  period  plus   three
   percentage points;
       4.  Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself
   sufficient   just   satisfaction  for  any   non-pecuniary   damage
   sustained by the applicants;
       5.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim  for  just
   satisfaction.
   
       Done  in English, and notified in writing on 17 November  2005,
   pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
   
                                                      Christos ROZAKIS
                                                             President
                                                                      
                                                      Santiago QUESADA
                                                      Deputy Registrar
   
   
   
   
   
                                                            Appendix 1
                                                                      
   ----------------------------T-------------------------T----------¬
   ¦     NAME OF APPLICANT     ¦   FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE  ¦  AWARDED ¦
   ¦                           ¦        ENFORCED         ¦  AMOUNT  ¦
   ¦                           ¦    Date/Decision body   ¦   (RUR)  ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦1. Nina Alekseyevna        ¦29 May 2000 /            ¦  2,028.92¦
   ¦   Shestopalova            ¦the Levoberezhny District¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦2. Anastasiya Petrovna     ¦30 November 2000 /       ¦  2,353.19¦
   ¦   Barkova                 ¦the Levoberezhny District¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦3. Aleksandra Ivanovna     ¦28 March 2000 /          ¦  4,540.70¦
   ¦   Basova                  ¦the Kominternovskiy      ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦District Court of        ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Voronezh                 ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦4. Valentina Mikhaylovna   ¦29 September 2000 /      ¦  2,218.76¦
   ¦   Bokova                  ¦the Levoberezhny District¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦5. Lyudmila Vasilyevna     ¦3 December 1999 /        ¦  3,397.14¦
   ¦   Borisova                ¦the Levoberezhny District¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦6. Valentina Aleksandrovna ¦4 January 2000 /         ¦  3,324.50¦
   ¦   Bykovskaya              ¦the Tsentralny District  ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦7. Nelya Vasilyevna        ¦13 October 2000 /        ¦  2,160.7 ¦
   ¦   Voroshilina             ¦the Sovetskiy District   ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦8. Olga Ivanovna Vysotskaya¦8 February 2000 /        ¦  4,089.03¦
   ¦                           ¦the Zheleznodorozhny     ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦District Court of        ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Voronezh; 25 May         ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦2000 / the Levoberezhny  ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦District Court of        ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Voronezh                 ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦9. Zinaida Petrovna        ¦20 December 1999 /       ¦  9,774.52¦
   ¦   Goncharova              ¦the Tsentralny District  ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦10. Svetlana Mikhaylovna   ¦2 December 1999 /        ¦  3,927.84¦
   ¦    Zagorskaya             ¦the Levoberezhny District¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦11. Valentina Vasilyevna   ¦28 February 2001 /       ¦  4,761.12¦
   ¦    Klepikova              ¦the Leninskiy District   ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦12. Nina Timofeyevna       ¦21 July 2000 /           ¦  1,999.07¦
   ¦    Kozyavkina             ¦the Levoberezhny District¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦13. Tatyana Alekseyevna    ¦21 January 2000 /        ¦  8,467.52¦
   ¦    Kolyukayeva            ¦the Levoberezhny District¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦14. Tatyana Ivanovna Ksenz ¦18 February 1999 /       ¦  3,959.26¦
   ¦                           ¦the Zheleznodorozhny     ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦District Court of        ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Voronezh; 24 November    ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦2000/the Levoberezhny    ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦District Court of        ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Voronezh                 ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦15. Nina Semenovna Kuimova ¦14 April 2000 /          ¦  1,533.54¦
   ¦                           ¦the Zheleznodorozhny     ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦District Court of        ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Voronezh                 ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦16. Lyudmila Ivanovna      ¦19 January 2000 /        ¦  8,337.08¦
   ¦    Kudryavtseva           ¦the Levoberezhny District¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦17. Irina Nikolayevna      ¦11 October 2000 /        ¦  2,311.36¦
   ¦    Lavrentyeva            ¦the Levoberezhny District¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦18. Valentina Mikhaylovna  ¦25 February and 13       ¦  4,220.19¦
   ¦    Lipovtseva             ¦October 2000 /           ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦the Zheleznodorozhny     ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦District Court of        ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Voronezh                 ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦19. Mariya Fedorovna       ¦29 June 2000 /           ¦  2,061.08¦
   ¦    Minakova               ¦the Levoberezhny District¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦20. Yelena Tikhonovna      ¦19 January 2000 /        ¦  8,663.29¦
   ¦    Moshurova              ¦the Levoberezhny District¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦21. Vera Konstantinovna    ¦19 January 2000 /        ¦  8,337.08¦
   ¦    Myasoyedova            ¦the Levoberezhny District¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦22. Lyubov Mikhaylovna     ¦6 December 1999 /        ¦ 10,289.10¦
   ¦    Nebolsina              ¦the Levoberezhny District¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦23. Marina Leonidovna      ¦20 April 2000 /          ¦  9,257   ¦
   ¦    Panina                 ¦the Tsentralny District  ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦24. Valentina Ivanovna     ¦26 July 2002 /           ¦  5,906.2 ¦
   ¦    Popova                 ¦the Justice of Peace of  ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦the Tsentralny District  ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦of Voronezh              ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦25. Nina Ivanovna Ryabova  ¦29 December 1999 and 22  ¦  2,667.89¦
   ¦                           ¦February 2000 /          ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦the Levoberezhny District¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦26. Valentina Yegorovna    ¦28 January 2000 /        ¦  1,994.96¦
   ¦    Sinelnikova            ¦the Levoberezhny District¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦27. Lyubov Germanovna      ¦20 December 1999 /       ¦ 11,887.26¦
   ¦    Skopintseva            ¦the Tsentralny District  ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦28. Valentina Mikhaylovna  ¦7 March 2000 /           ¦  2,163.17¦
   ¦    Slepokurova            ¦the Kominternovskiy      ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦District Court of        ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Voronezh                 ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦29. Natalya Aleksandrovna  ¦18 February 1999 /       ¦  1,597.05¦
   ¦    Spakhova               ¦the Zheleznodorozhny     ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦District Court of        ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Voronezh                 ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦30. Yevgeniya Aleksandrovna¦7 March 2000 and 26 June ¦  5,973.36¦
   ¦    Starykh                ¦2001/the Sovetskiy       ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦District Court of        ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Voronezh                 ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦31. Valentina Alekseyevna  ¦9 October 2000 /         ¦  4,417.48¦
   ¦    Stolpovskaya           ¦the Zheleznodorozhny     ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦District Court of        ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Voronezh                 ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦32. Tatyana Pavlovna       ¦20 December 1999 /       ¦  7,154.54¦
   ¦    Tomilina               ¦the Tsentralny District  ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦33. Yelena Viktorovna      ¦22 February 2000 /       ¦  3,944.5 ¦
   ¦    Trofimova              ¦the Levoberezhny District¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦34. Valentina Nikolayevna  ¦19 January and 30 March  ¦  3,910.05¦
   ¦    Urazova                ¦2001/the Zheleznodorozhny¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦District Court of        ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Voronezh                 ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦35. Irina Viktorovna       ¦19 January 2000 /        ¦  8,663.29¦
   ¦    Tsunenko               ¦the Levoberezhny District¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦36. Galina Ivanovna        ¦15 March 2000 /          ¦  1,985.18¦
   ¦    Shamayeva              ¦the Tsentralny District  ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦37. Tatyana Mitrofanovna   ¦22 December 1999 /       ¦  1,830.65¦
   ¦    Sheremetyeva           ¦the Sovetskiy District   ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   +---------------------------+-------------------------+----------+
   ¦38. Nina Vasilyevna Yarkina¦13 November 2000 /       ¦  4,464.52¦
   ¦                           ¦the Sovetskiy District   ¦          ¦
   ¦                           ¦Court of Voronezh        ¦          ¦
   L---------------------------+-------------------------+-----------
   
   
   
   
   
                                                            Appendix 2
                                                                      
   ---------------------------------------T-------------------------¬
   ¦           NAME OF APPLICANT          ¦  AMOUNT TO BE PAID FOR  ¦
   ¦                                      ¦  PECUNIARY DAMAGE (RUR) ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦1. Nina Alekseyevna Shestopalova      ¦          2,739.3        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦2. Anastasiya Petrovna Barkova        ¦          3,200.3        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦3. Aleksandra Ivanovna Basova         ¦          6,175.4        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦4. Valentina Mikhaylovna Bokova       ¦          3,017.5        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦5. Lyudmila Vasilyevna Borisova       ¦          4,620.1        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦6. Valentina Aleksandrovna Bykovskaya ¦          4,521.3        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦7. Nelya Vasilyevna Voroshilina       ¦          2,938.6        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦8. Olga Ivanovna Vysotskaya           ¦          5,561.08       ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦9. Zinaida Petrovna Goncharova        ¦         13,293.3        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦10. Svetlana Mikhaylovna Zagorskaya   ¦          5,341.9        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦11. Valentina Vasilyevna Klepikova    ¦          6,475.1        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦12. Nina Timofeyevna Kozyavkina       ¦          2,718.7        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦13. Tatyana Alekseyevna Kolyukayeva   ¦         11,515.8        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦14. Tatyana Ivanovna Ksenz            ¦          5,384.6        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦15. Nina Semenovna Kuimova            ¦          2,085.6        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦16. Lyudmila Ivanovna Kudryavtseva    ¦         11,338.4        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦17. Irina Nikolayevna Lavrentyeva     ¦          3,143.4        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦18. Valentina Mikhaylovna Lipovtseva  ¦          5,739.5        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦19. Mariya Fedorovna Minakova         ¦          2,803.06       ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦20. Yelena Tikhonovna Moshurova       ¦         11,782.07       ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦21. Vera Konstantinovna Myasoyedova   ¦         11,338.4        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦22. Lyubov Mikhaylovna Nebolsina      ¦         13,993.2        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦23. Marina Leonidovna Panina          ¦         12,589.5        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦24. Valentina Ivanovna Popova         ¦          8,032.4        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦25. Nina Ivanovna Ryabova             ¦          3,628.3        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦26. Valentina Yegorovna Sinelnikova   ¦          2,713.1        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦27. Lyubov Germanovna Skopintseva     ¦         16,166.7        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦28. Valentina Mikhaylovna Slepokurova ¦          2,941.9        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦29. Natalya Aleksandrovna Spakhova    ¦          2,172          ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦30. Yevgeniya Aleksandrovna Starykh   ¦          8,123.8        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦31. Valentina Alekseyevna Stolpovskaya¦          6,007.8        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦32. Tatyana Pavlovna Tomilina         ¦          9,730.2        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦33. Yelena Viktorovna Trofimova       ¦          5,432.5        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦34. Valentina Nikolayevna Urazova     ¦          5,317.7        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦35. Irina Viktorovna Tsunenko         ¦         11,782.07       ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦36. Galina Ivanovna Shamayeva         ¦          2,699.8        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦37. Tatyana Mitrofanovna Sheremetyeva ¦          2,489.7        ¦
   +--------------------------------------+-------------------------+
   ¦38. Nina Vasilyevna Yarkina           ¦          6,071.7        ¦
   L--------------------------------------+--------------------------
   
   

Списки

Право 2010


Новости партнеров
Счетчики
 
Популярное в сети
Реклама
Курсы валют
16.08.2016
USD
64.21
EUR
71.73
CNY
9.67
JPY
0.64
GBP
82.94
TRY
21.72
PLN
16.8
Разное