Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 07.10.2010 «Дело Утюжникова (Utyuzhnikova) против России» [англ.]

uld in no way be interpreted as prejudging the Court's assessment on the quality of the new remedy. It will examine this question in other cases more suitable for this analysis. It does not consider the present case as such, particularly in view of the fact that the parties' observations were made with account of the situation that had existed before the introduction of the new remedy.
52. Having regard to these special circumstances, while the Court considers this complaint admissible, it does not find it necessary to continue its separate examination in the present case.

III. Other alleged violations of the Convention

53. The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings in her case and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention of unlawful interference with her possessions by the State, referring to the failure to fully enforce the judgment in her favour.
54. Having regard to all the materials in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in these provisions in that respect. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.

IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

55. 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

56. The applicant claimed 21,380 Russian roubles (RUB) as inflation losses resulting from belated payment of her allowance for the period from 1 December 1992 to 1 December 1995 and RUB 367,719 as penalty for the belated payment of her allowance for the period from 1 December 1995 to 1 March 2000 in respect of pecuniary damage. In total the claimed amount is approximately equal to 10,200 euros (EUR). The applicant also claimed RUB 27,462 (approximately EUR 718) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
57. The Government made no comment on the amounts claimed.
58. In respect of the claim for pecuniary damage, the Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
59. In respect of the claim for non-pecuniary damage, the Court finds that it is reasonable to assume that the applicant suffered some distress and frustration caused by the unreasonable length of the proceedings. Deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 750 under this head.

B. Costs and expenses

60. The applicant also claimed RUB 3,280 (approximately EUR 85) for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and before the Court.
61. The Government made no comment on the amount claimed.
62. The Court notes that the applicant failed to submit any evidence to support her claim. Regard being had to this fact, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses altogether.

C. Default interest

63. 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. Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of the proceedings and lack of an effective remedy admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Articl

> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6