Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 16.09.2010 «Дело Черничкин (Chernichkin) против России» [англ.]

right to compensation by the State for the damage should not be tied in with the personal fault of a judge (see paragraph 16 above). It also held that an individual should be able to obtain compensation for any damage incurred through a violation of his or her right to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. It follows that the applicant's claim concerned his civil rights of a pecuniary nature and should have been amenable to examination in civil proceedings.
29. The Moscow courts dismissed the applicant's claim on the grounds that the legislature had not yet determined jurisdiction over such claims. This limitation on the right to a court excluded any possibility of having such a claim examined and, accordingly, undermined the essence of the applicant's right of access to a court. The Government did not offer any justification for the continued failure to adopt legislation governing the procedure for examination of such claims.
30. Accordingly, the Court finds that the applicant was denied the right of access to a court and that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that regard.

II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

31. 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

32. The applicant claimed 17,143 euros (EUR) as compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
33. The Government considered that the applicant's claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage was excessive and unreasonable and also not supported by any evidence of harm or suffering.
34. The Court considers that the applicant must have suffered distress and frustration as a result of the refusal of the domestic courts to entertain his claims. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant's suffering and frustration cannot be compensated for by a mere finding of a violation. The particular amount claimed is however excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 7,200 for non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on the above amount.

B. Costs and expenses

35. The applicant claimed 10,767 euros (EUR) for 1,786 hours of his own work in the domestic proceedings at the rate of EUR 6.03 an hour and a further EUR 1,055 for 175 hours' work on self-representation in the Strasbourg proceedings.
36. The Government stated that the applicant's method of calculation of his own work had not been "based on any legislation" and had been therefore "erroneous". The amount claimed was unreasonable in respect of the complexity of the case. In the Government's opinion, the award should not exceed EUR 100.
37. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,000 covering costs under all heads.

C. Default interest

38. 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 application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violatio

> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6