Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 04.11.2010 «Дело Пугач и другие (Pugach and others) против России» [англ.]

As regards the applicants' claims in respect of enforcement of the quashed judgments of 4 June 2007, the Court notes that the applicants have been receiving the judicial awards in their favour until the moment when the relevant judgments were quashed via supervisory review. Consequently, they had suffered no pecuniary damage until that moment. The Court further observes that, once quashed, the judgments ceased to exist under domestic law. The Court cannot restore the power of these judgments nor assume the role of the national authorities in awarding social benefits for the future (see, among others, Tarnopolskaya and Others v. Russia, Nos. 11093/07, 14558/07, 19660/07, 30166/07, 46736/07, 52681/07, 52985/07, 10633/08, 10652/08, 12694/08, 15437/08, 16691/08, 19447/07, 19457/08, 20857/08, 20872/08, 22546/08, 25820/08, 25839/08 and 25845/08, § 51, 7 July 2009). The Court also observes that after the judgments of 4 June 2007 had been quashed, the authorities started to pay the applicants monthly disability benefits in accordance with the relevant legislation.
38. Consequently, the Court makes no award in respect of the pecuniary damage in the present eight cases.
39. The Court furthermore finds that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of the violation found which cannot be compensated by the mere finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards each applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, and dismisses the remainder of the claims under this head.

B. Costs and expenses

40. The applicants did not claim any costs or expenses. Accordingly, the Court does not make any award under this head.

C. Default interest

41. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaint under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the quashing of the final judgments in the applicants' favour admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the quashing of the judgments in the applicants' favour by way of supervisory review;
4. Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 November 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Christos ROZAKIS
President

{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar

Annex

------------------T---------------T------------------------------T--------¬
¦ Application No. ¦ Introduced on ¦ Applica

> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6