Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 20.05.2010 «Дело Бутенко и другие (Butenko and others) против России» [англ.]

e that the remedies suggested by the Government could not be considered as effective (see paragraph 20 above). There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.

IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

35. 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

36. The applicants asked the Court to oblige the Government to enforce the judgments given in their favour. Each applicant also claimed 4,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
37. The Government argued that no award should be made, because the applicants' rights had not been infringed and because the applicants had failed to substantiate their non-pecuniary damage.
38. As to pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates that the violation found is best redressed by putting the applicant in the position he would have been if the Convention had been respected. The Government shall therefore secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the domestic courts' judgments (see, with further references, Poznakhirina v. Russia, No. 25964/02, § 33, 24 February 2005).
39. As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court accepts that the applicants must have suffered distress caused by the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgments. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards EUR 4,000 to each applicant under this head.

B. Costs and expenses

40. Each applicant claimed 2,725 Russian roubles (RUB) for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
41. The Government contended that the applicants had not shown that the expenses were necessary and reasonable in the amounts claimed.
42. 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 60 to each applicant for the proceedings before the Court.

C. Default interest

43. 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 applications admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, shall secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the judgments given in the applicants' favour, and in addition pay each applicant EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 60 (sixty euros) to each applicant in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants on the mentioned amounts, 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 amount[s] at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank duri

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6