Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.07.2010 <Дело Никитина (Nikitina) против России» [англ.]

taking into account that changing needs force the State to make frequent changes in its organisational structure, including by forming new organs and liquidating old ones (see Kuksa v. Russia, No. 35259/04, § 26, 15 June 2006).
20. The Court accordingly concludes that the State's failure to comply with the judgment during more than five years has breached Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Burdov v. Russia, No. 59498/00, §§ 33 - 42, ECHR 2002-III).

II. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention

21. The applicant complained that she had no effective domestic remedy against the non-enforcement of the judgments. Article 13 reads as follows:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
22. The Government retorted that the applicant had not availed herself of such domestic remedies as a negligence complaint and a claim for non-pecuniary damages.
23. The Court considers that the remedies cited by the Government would be ineffective. A negligence complaint would likely be rejected by a national court on the ground that the actions of the enforcement officials were lawful in the situation where the debtor had been liquidated. In any event, this remedy could hardly bring any other result than a mere restatement by a court of the State's obligation to pay the award (see Moroko v. Russia, No. 20937/07, § 25, 12 June 2008). A claim for non-pecuniary damages has not been shown to be sufficiently certain in practice so as to offer the applicant reasonable prospects of success as required by the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia (No. 2), No. 33509/04, §§ 109 - 116, ECHR 2009-...).
24. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.

III. Other alleged violations of the Convention

25. The applicants also complained under Articles 6 and 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of incorrect interpretation of the law and facts by the domestic courts in the proceedings that ended on 17 and 19 April 2007.
26. Having regard to all the material 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

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

27. The applicant claimed 100 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage calculated as 3,030 Russian roubles (RUB) (EUR 72) awarded to her in the non-enforced judgment, plus relevant inflation losses. She also claimed EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government objected to these claims stating that the applicant's rights had not been violated and that her calculations were arbitrary.
28. As to pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates that the best redress of a violation of Article 6 is to put the applicant as far as possible in the position he would have been in if Article 6 had been respected (see Piersack v. Belgium (Article 50), judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A No. 85, § 12). Applied to the case at hand, this principle would mean that the State must pay to

> 1 2 3 4 5