Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.04.2010 «Дело Маргушин (Margushin) против России» [англ.]

paration to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

A. Damage

44. The applicant claimed USD 4,593.54 in respect of pecuniary damage. He noted that that amount covered the losses he had incurred after his deposit had been transferred to the Sberbank due to an unrealistic exchange rate applied, interest on the deposit and a late payment fee. He further claimed RUB 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
45. The Government considered that the applicant's claims for just satisfaction should be rejected in full. In their opinion, it remained open to the applicant to ask the bank to repay the pecuniary damage sought. As regards the applicant's claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage, they opined that he incurred no damage through the fault of the State. In any event, they considered the applicant's claims excessive and unreasonable.
46. The Court reiterates that in the instant case it found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in that the enforcement of the judicial decision in the applicant's favour was discontinued. The Court notes that the most appropriate 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). The Court finds that in the present case this principle applies as well, having regard to the violations found (compare Poznakhirina v. Russia, No. 25964/02, § 33, 24 February 2005, and Sukhobokov v. Russia, No. 75470/01, § 34, 13 April 2006). The applicant was prevented from receiving money he had legitimately expected to receive under the judgment of 28 March 2001 as upheld on 22 August 2001. The Court, accordingly, considers that the Government shall secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the said judgment (see, among other authorities, Lesnova v. Russia, No. 37645/04, § 25, 24 January 2008).
47. The Court further considers that the applicant must have suffered distress and frustration resulting from the State authorities' failure to enforce the judgment in his favour. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 645 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on the above amount.

B. Costs and expenses

48. The applicant did not submit a claim for costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum of that account.

C. Default interest

49. 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

1. Declares by a majority the complaint concerning non-enforcement of the judgment of 28 March 2001 as upheld on 22 August 2001 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of discontinuation of the enforcement of the judgment of 28 March 2001 as upheld on 22 August 2001;
3. Holds by six votes to one
(a) that the respondent State, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, shall secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the judgment of 28 March 2001 as upheld on 22 August 2001;
(b) 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

> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8