CASE OF BABCHIN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
(Application no. 55698/14)
13 July 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Babchin v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Carlo Ranzoni, President,
Pauliine Koskelo, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 June 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
1. The case originated in an application (no. 55698/14) against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 31 July 2014 by a Moldovan national, Mr Valentin Babchin (“the applicant”).
2. In a judgment delivered on 17 September 2019 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that there has been a violation of Articles 3 and 5 § 1 of the Convention, of Article 1 to Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and of Article 13 if the Convention read in conjunction with the other complaints (Babchin v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 55698/14, 17 September 2019).
3. Under Article 41 of the Convention the applicant sought just satisfaction of 86,169,712.33 “MRT” roubles (equivalent to 7,180,809 euros (EUR)) as pecuniary damage, representing the value of his seized property. He also sought EUR 60,000 as non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,080 as costs and expenses.
4. Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision, in particular as regards pecuniary damage, the Court reserved it and invited the respondent Governments and the applicant to submit, within three months, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (ibid., § 88 and point 12 of the operative provisions).
5. The applicant failed to submit his claims for just satisfaction within the time-limit set by the principal judgment.
6. The Court notes that, within the time-limit set by the principal judgment, the applicant failed to submit any claims for just satisfaction. He did not request an extension of this time-limit before its expiry. His subsequent, unsolicited and late claims were not accepted to the file and shall not be examined.
7. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award the applicant any sum on that account (see, for instance, Siredzhuk v. Ukraine, no. 16901/03, § 96, 21 January 2016 and Balakin v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 59474/11, § 26, 26 January 2016).
Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 July 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan Bakırcı Carlo Ranzoni
Deputy Registrar President