Главная страницаZaki.ru законы и право Поиск законов поиск по сайту Каталог документов каталог документов Добавить в избранное добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное




Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 29.04.2010 «Дело Сметанко (Smetanko) против России» [англ.]





favour in good time. There has been, therefore, a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

III. Other alleged violations of the Convention

55. Lastly, the applicant complained that the judge who had decided his case in 1996 - 1997 was biased, that the domestic courts had erred in granting N.'s action, that the bailiffs had wrongfully seized his house and that his action against them had been to no avail. He referred to Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
56. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence ratione temporis, the Court finds that the events complained of do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Articles 35 § 3 and 4 of the Convention.

IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

57. 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

58. The applicant claimed RUB 1,500,000 in respect of pecuniary damage. He alleged that he had lost that amount when selling his house at a low price to comply with the judgment of 4 March 2002 which had been subsequently quashed. He further claimed EUR 30,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
59. The Government considered the applicant's claims excessive and unsubstantiated. They further submitted that the applicant's claim in respect of pecuniary damage concerned his complaint about the length of the proceedings in his case. This had been subject to consideration by domestic courts which had recognised the violation of his rights and awarded him just satisfaction on that account.
60. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, the Court accepts that the applicant suffered frustration on account of the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. However, the particular amount claimed appears excessive. The Court takes into account the relevant elements, such as the nature of the award at stake in the present case and the length of the enforcement proceedings. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Costs and expenses

61. The applicant also claimed EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. He submitted receipts for RUB 44.1 in respect of his postal expenses in relation to the enforcement proceedings and RUB 713.8 in respect of his postal expenses in relation to the proceedings before the Court.
62. The Government considered that only the applicant's expenses incurred before the Court should be reimbursed.
63. 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 are 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 20 covering costs under all heads.

C. Default interest

64. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be



> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8

Поделиться:

Опубликовать в своем блоге livejournal.com
0.1332 СЃ