Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 04.03.2010 «Дело Штукатуров (Shtukaturov) против России» [англ.]

sions

12. The Government considered these claims wholly unreasonable and excessive. Referring to the case of Rakevich v. Russia, No. 58973/00, 28 October 2003, where the Court had found a breach of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention in similar circumstances, the Government insisted that the just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage in the present case should not exceed EUR 3,000.

C. The Court's conclusion

13. The Court reiterates that the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage is assessed with a view to providing "reparation for the anxiety, inconvenience and uncertainty caused by the violation" (see, for example, Ramadhi and Others v. Albania, No. 38222/02, § 9, 13 November 2007).
14. The Court further reiterates that a judgment in which it finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to the breach and make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach. The Contracting States that are parties to a case are in principle free to choose the means whereby they will comply with a judgment in which the Court has found a breach. This discretion as to the manner of execution of a judgment reflects the freedom of choice attaching to the primary obligation of the Contracting States under the Convention to secure the rights and freedoms guaranteed (Article 1). If the nature of the breach allows of restitutio in integrum, it is for the respondent State to effect it. If, on the other hand, national law does not allow - or allows only partial - reparation to be made for the consequences of the breach, Article 41 empowers the Court to afford the injured party such satisfaction as appears to it to be appropriate (see Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), 31 October 1995, § 34, Series A No. 330-B).
15. Turning to the present case the Court notes that since the adoption of the principal judgment the applicant's situation has changed. First, on 27 February 2009 the Constitutional Court of Russia struck down as unconstitutional some of the provisions of the Psychiatric Care Act and the Code of Civil Procedure applied in the applicant's case. For the purposes of Article 41 of the Convention the Court does not need to analyse in detail the decision of the Constitutional Court of Russia and its consistency with the Court's own position in the case. What is important is that the decision of the Constitutional Court should have given the applicant a certain degree of moral satisfaction, which the Court must take into account when deciding on the award under Article 41 of the Convention.
16. Furthermore, in May 2009, following the proceedings before the Vasileostrovskiy District Court of St Petersburg, the applicant's legal capacity was restored. Those proceedings were not instituted in pursuance of the Court's principal judgment or even of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of Russia. The case was brought to the District Court by the State guardianship authority in view of the improvement of the applicant's mental condition. Further, the decision of 27 April 2009 restoring the applicant's legal capacity did not cast doubt on the validity of the original decision of the same court (of 28 December 2004) by which the applicant had been declared incapable. Nevertheless, the main practical consequence of the latter proceedings is that the applicant's legal capacity is now fully restored. The Court cannot ignore this fact and its positive effects for the applicant.
17. All that being said, the Court notes that neither of those decisions remedied the past wrongs, which persisted for over four years. During that period the State continued to infringe some of the applicant's most fundamental rights. Thus, as the Court put it in the principal judgment, the applicant wa

> 1 2 3 4