Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 02.09.2010 <Дело Таянко (Tayanko) против России» [англ.]

iate form of redress in respect of a violation of Article 6 is to ensure that the applicant as far as possible is put in the position he would have been had the requirements of Article 6 not been disregarded (see Piersack v. Belgium (Article 50), judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A No. 85, p. 16, § 12, and, mutatis mutandis, {Gencel} v. Turkey, No. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003). The Court finds that in the present case this principle applies as well, having regard to the violations found. The Court considers it appropriate to award the applicant the equivalent in euros of the sum spent for housing during the period the final judgment in his favour was amended to his detriment (see paragraph 59 above), that is EUR 2,328, in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
61. As regards the remainder of the claim for pecuniary damage, the Court does not discern any causal link between it and the violation found; it therefore rejects this part of the claim.

2. Non-pecuniary damage

62. As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the applicant must have suffered distress and frustration resulting from modification, to his detriment, of the final judgment of 5 July 2000 via supervisory review. However, the amount claimed appears excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

B. Costs and expenses

63. The applicant also claimed RUB 175,000 for the costs and expenses.
64. The Government contested the claim as unsubstantiated.
65. 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 300.

C. Default interest

66. 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 modification, to the applicant's detriment, of the final judgment of 5 July 2000 via supervisory review and its non-enforcement admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of modification, to the applicant's detriment, of the final judgment of 5 July 2000 via supervisory review;
3. Holds that there is no need to examine the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning non-enforcement of that judgment and the alleged violation of the applicant's procedural rights in the supervisory review proceedings;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 2,328 (two thousand three hundred twenty eight euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR 300 (three hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the abov

> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7