2 частина Англ. Міністерство освіти і науки України Національний університет Одеська юридична академія Юлінецька Ю. В. Алєксєєв М. Е. Юридична англійська європейських судів Збірка завдань для самостійної роботи студентівюристів ii курсу Одеса
 Скачать 54.26 Kb.
|
|
Read the following text EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COUR EUROPEENE DES DROIS DE L’HOMME CASE OF VARDANYAN AND NANUSHYAN v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT (Merits) III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 101. The first applicant complained that the deprivation of his house amounted also to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention which provides: “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” 102. Having regard to the conclusion reached on the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, which raises similar issues. IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION 103. The applicants also raised a number of other complaints under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention. 104. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and insofar as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 105. 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 106. In respect of pecuniary damage, the first applicant claimed EUR 1,048,097.55 as the value of the expropriated house. The first applicant submitted that the most appropriate way for the Government to redress the pecuniary damage caused as a result of the unlawful dispossession of his plot of land would be to return the land to him. He submitted that the land had not yet been alienated to a private entity. In the event of the Government’s not being able to return the land, the first applicant stated that he was willing to consider an award of compensation and claimed a sum of EUR 10,381,842.05 which, according to him, represented the current market value of the land. The applicant further claimed EUR 12,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 107. The Government claimed that the first applicant could not claim compensation for the plot of land since it had never belonged to him. The Government further submitted that the amount of compensation claimed for the house was excessive and that it should be calculated based on the value of the house at the time of its expropriation. Lastly, the Government submitted that the amount of AMD 54,494,000 that the first applicant had already received in the domestic proceedings was adequate compensation for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage that he may have suffered. 108. In the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that, as far as the award of damages is concerned, the question of the application of Article 41 is not ready for decision. That question must accordingly be reserved and the subsequent procedure fixed, having regard to any agreement which might be reached between the Government and the first applicant. B. Costs and expenses 109. The first applicant did not claim any costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court does not make any award under this head. 4.Give English equivalents of the following: 1. право на повагу до приватного і сімейного життя ______________________ 2. відповідно до закону ___________________________________________ 3. в інтересах національної безпеки _________________________________ 4. для захисту здоров'я і суспільної моралі __________________________ 5. вважати за необхідне розглядати окремо __________________________ 6. піднімати подібні питання _________________________________________ 7. викривати прояви порушення прав і свобод ___________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 8. У тій мірі, в якій скарга підпадає під його компетенцію _________________ 9. відхилити як необґрунтовану згідно ст. ____________________________ 10. відчужувати на користь приватної особи __________________________ 11. в разі, якщо уряд буде не в змозі ________________________________ 12. відповідний спосіб відшкодування матеріального збитку ______________________________________________________________ 13. вимагати в порядку відшкодування моральної шкоди ______________ 14. сума відшкодування збитку є надмірною _________________________ 15. вартість будинку на момент вилучення ____________________________ 16. понести збитки __________________________________________________ 17. в обставинах сьогодення справи ___________________________________ 18. питання слід відкласти ___________________________________________ 19. з урахуванням можливого досягнення угоди _________________________ 20. встановлення подальшої процедури ________________________________ 5. Fill the gaps in the text. The missing words are to be found in the list provided (Belonged, Lastly, expropriation, non-pecuniary, submitted, value, applicant, adequate, excessive, domestic, suffered). The Government claimed that the first ________________ could not claim compensation for the plot of land since it had never ________________ to him. The Government further ______________ that the amount of compensation claimed for the house was ______________ and that it should be calculated based on the ____________ of the house at the time of its ________________. ___________, the Government submitted that the amount of AMD 54,494,000 that the first applicant had already received in the _______________ proceedings was ____________ compensation for any pecuniary and _______________ damage that he may have ___________________. 6.Give your translation of the above text ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ TASKS FOR CONTROL On the basis of the information provided state if the following sentences are true or false 1. Public authority is not entitled to interfere with the right individual rights to enjoy property under any circumstances. ___________ Article 41 of the Convention provides that just compensation can be afforded to the injured party where domestic legislation allows only partial reparation to be made. _____________ The applicants didn’t ask for damages. ___________________ In addition to pecuniary damages the applicants claimed non-pecuniary damages. ______________ The Court did not reserve any issues for further consideration. ______ Give your English translation of the following: 1. Суд вважає за необхідне розглянути позов окремо, тому він піднімає питання, які раніше не розглядалися. ________________________________________________________________ 2. З огляду на нові обставини, суд розглянув скаргу в тій частині, яка підпадає під його компетенцію. ________________________________________________________________ 3.Заявник стверджував, що, оскільки ця земля ще не відчужена на користь третьої особи, то уряд повинен відшкодувати матеріальні збитки шляхом повернення йому земельної ділянки, про яку йде мова. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.Уряд стверджує, що заявник не може вимагати компенсацію за земельну ділянку, тому що та не належала йому раніше ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.Нарешті, уряд заявляє, що сума, виплачена заявникові в результаті розгляду справи в національних судах, є достатньою компенсацією за завдану моральну шкоду. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ |