Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) of Court (First Section Committee), June 11, 2015 (case CASE OF PANCHENKO v. RUSSIA)

Resolution Date:June 11, 2015
Issuing Organization:Court (First Section Committee)



(Application no. 11496/05)



11 June 2015

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Panchenko v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

             Khanlar Hajiyev, President,              Erik Møse,              Dmitry Dedov, judges,and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 19 May 2015,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:


  1. The case originated in an application (no. 11496/05) 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 a Russian national, Mr Igor Vladilenovich Panchenko (“the applicant”), on 7 March 2005.

  2. The applicant was represented by Mr V. Yesakov, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

  3. On 16 March 2010 the application was communicated to the Government.



  4. The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in St Petersburg.

  5. In 1995, a criminal case was opened against the applicant on suspicion of fraud and bribery. On 31 August 1995 the investigators searched the applicant’s home and office. They removed some items and money.

  6. On 10 March 1998 the applicant sued the Prosecutor’s Office for the return of his possessions. On 27 May 1998 the proceedings were adjourned pending the outcome of the criminal case.

  7. By decisions of 29 November 2000 and 23 January 2001, the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg established that the searches of 31 August 1995 had been unlawful.

  8. In July 2002 the civil proceedings were resumed.

  9. On 4 February 2004 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued. Prosecutors returned a part of the applicant’s possessions but the rest of them had already been disposed of.

  10. In its judgment of 8 February 2005, the Court found that the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant did not satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 136, 8 February 2005).

  11. On 9 March 2005 the Oktyabrskiy District Court partly upheld the applicant’s claims. On 18 May 2005 the St Petersburg City Court remitted the case to the first instance for a fresh examination.

  12. On 13 February 2007 the applicant submitted an amended statement of claims. In particular, he asked the court to award him damages in respect of the loss of value and profit, and, finally, costs and expenses.

  13. By a final judgment of 3 October 2007, the St Petersburg City Court awarded the applicant damages and costs and expenses in the amounts claimed but dismissed his claim for the loss of profit. The City Court acknowledged that the investigative authorities had illegally removed, and subsequently disposed of, the applicant’s property.

  14. The judgment was enforced in January 2008.



To continue reading

Request your trial