Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 110

July 2008

Kireev v. Moldova and Russia - 11375/05

Decision 1.7.2008 [Section IV]

Article 34

Defendant state party

Ex officio examination of a case against Moldova by virtue of factual links with that country: inadmissible

The applicant was a Russian national living in Tighina/Bender, a town on the territory of Moldova, but which has since 1991 been under the control of the self-proclaimed “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” (the “MRT”). Since 1962 the applicant had been saving money in a bank situated in Tighina/Bender. In 2004 he lodged an action with the local “MRT courts” requesting compensation for the loss of value of his deposits following economic reforms, for which he considered the State was liable. In 2005 he also brought an action in the Moldovan courts, but failed to submit the necessary documentary evidence. Subsequently, he appears also to have attempted to obtain compensation from a Russian bank for the loss of the value of his deposits, but his application was rejected since his money had been deposited in a bank outside Russia.

Inadmissible : The application was initially lodged against “the unrecognised Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” and the applicant subsequently designated Russia as the respondent State. However, given that the applicant had deposited money in a bank currently situated in Moldova and had taken certain steps before the Moldovan authorities, the Court ex officio examined the application in respect of Moldova as well. It firstly observed that even though Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 did not oblige States to maintain the purchasing power of sums deposited with financial institutions, both Russia and Moldova had enacted legislation allowing partial compensation for the effects of inflation to be paid under certain conditions. The 1995 Russian Savings Act allowed compensation only for savings in banks operating on the territory of the former Russian Soviet Socialist Federal Republic. Since the applicant’s bank was situated in Moldova, he had not been eligible to apply for such compensation. Moreover, even assuming that Russia could be held accountable for acts or omissions of the “MRT authorities”, under the Convention it had no obligation to enact a law providing for compensation for money deposited in banks located in the territory of the “MRT”. On the other hand, Moldovan legislation allowed for compensation only to citizens of Moldova. Since the applicant had only Russian nationality, he was not eligible for such compensation either. Accordingly, the applicant had no right or legitimate expectation to obtain compensation under either Russian or Moldovan legislation: manifestly ill-founded .

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes