Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.03.2010 «Дело СПК Димский (SPK Dimskiy) против России» [англ.]

d obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."
74. The applicant claimed that counsel had not been notified of the adjournment of the hearing until 17 December 2001 by mail delivery.
75. The Government submitted that counsel had been informed by mail that the hearing would take place on 11 December 2001. On that date he had appeared before the Federal Commercial Court and made oral submissions. The court had subsequently decided to adjourn the hearing until 17 December 2001, of which counsel had been immediately informed. However, on 17 December 2001 he had not appeared at court.
76. The Court has previously found a violation of the right to a "public and fair hearing" in several cases against Russia, in which a party to civil litigation was deprived of an opportunity to attend the hearing because of the belated or defective service of the summons (see Yakovlev v. Russia, No. 72701/01, §§ 19 et seq., 15 March 2005; Groshev v. Russia, No. 69889/01, §§ 27 et seq., 20 October 2005; and Mokrushina v. Russia, No. 23377/02, 5 October 2006). The situation in the present case was different. Counsel for the applicant had been duly informed of the hearing on 11 December 2001 by mail. The decision to adjourn the hearing until 17 December 2001 had been communicated to him in person. Thus, it transpires that he had been fully aware of the new hearing date but had not appeared at court, without giving a valid reason for his absence.
77. There has therefore been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

78. 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

79. The applicant claimed RUR 21,241,324.10 as compensation in respect of pecuniary damage, which represented the nominal value of the bonds adjusted for the inflation since 1991, and 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
80. The Government objected to an award of just satisfaction, claiming that the applicant had not suffered any damage because the bonds had not been legal tender and only certified the bearer's right to buy goods in high demand. They also considered that the claim for non-pecuniary damage was excessive and unsubstantiated.
81. As regards pecuniary damage, the Court notes that, following the enactment of the Buyout Act in 2009 and the Government's Resolution governing the buyout procedure (see paragraphs 35 and 36 above), it is now open to the applicant to apply to the competent domestic authorities for redemption of its bonds.
82. The Court further considers that, in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the applicant's status as a legal entity, the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage. Accordingly, it dismisses the applicant's claim in respect of damage.

B. Costs and expenses

83. The applicant further claimed the court fee of RUR 55,241.62 and RUR 99,000 for its representation in the domestic and Strasbourg proceedings. Copies of legal-services agreements were submitted. The Government did not make specific comments on this claim.
84. Having regard to the material in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 1,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on that amount.

C. Default interest

85. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the E

> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14