Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 04.03.2010 «Дело Рыбакова и другие (Rybakova and others) против России» [англ.]

t in the applicants' favour in good time.

II. Other alleged violations of the Convention

22. The applicants also complained under Article 6 that the proceedings were too long.
23. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in this provision in that respect. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

24. 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

25. The applicants claimed 1,280,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of pecuniary damage (the alleged price of vehicles identical to the disputed vehicles). They also claimed 40,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
26. The Government found the claim for pecuniary damage unsubstantiated and the claim for non-pecuniary damage excessive.
27. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found (the authorities' failure, during some five years, to register the applicants' title to vehicles in accordance with a binding judgment) and the pecuniary damage alleged (the price of the similar vehicles). Moreover, the applicants did not substantiate the claim. The Court therefore rejects it.
28. The Court finds, however, that the applicants may be considered to have suffered some degree of frustration and distress as a result of the violation found in this case. Deciding on an equitable basis, it awards each of the applicants EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

B. Costs and expenses

29. The applicants also claimed RUB 2,400 for the costs and expenses incurred.
30. The Government considered that the applicants' claim should be granted since they had submitted the documents confirming these expenses.
31. 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 above criteria, the Court awards the sum claimed (EUR 54).

C. Default interest

32. 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. Declares the complaint concerning non-enforcement admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Articles 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of non-enforcement;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to each applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 54 (fifty four euros) to the applicants jointly, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of costs and expenses;<

> 1 2 3 4