Thank you for visiting BAILII today. We hope you found what you were looking for.
BAILII was founded in 2000 to provide free online access to British and Irish legal materials, and millions of people use it every year — legal educators and students, practising lawyers, the advice sector, and many more. But it is not free to operate.
BAILII is funded through donations, and we are very grateful to our existing donors. However, we need your help to meet all of our costs and ensure that our extensive collection of legal information remains freely accessible to all (without cookies or trackers). If you found BAILII useful today, would you consider making a contribution? No donation is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF SHEVCHENKO v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 11536/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 November 2013
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Shevchenko v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Elisabeth Steiner, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Ksenija Turković, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 October 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
THE FACTS
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
Article 6
“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
B. Merits
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the non-enforcement complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 November 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Elisabeth Steiner
Deputy Registrar President