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

"reasonable time" requirement. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

II. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
on account of unfairness of the proceedings

66. The applicant further complained that by granting her claims only partly the domestic courts had misapplied the provisions of the domestic law.
67. The Court reiterates that, in accordance with Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, among other authorities, {Cekic} and Others v. Croatia (dec.), No. 15085/02, 9 October 2003).
68. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court finds that there is nothing to indicate that the domestic courts' evaluation of the facts and evidence presented in the applicant's case was contrary to Article 6 of the Convention. The applicant was provided with ample opportunity to present her arguments and to challenge the submissions of the opposing party in the proceedings, and the judicial authorities gave her arguments due consideration. In the light of the foregoing consideration, the Court finds that the reasons on which the national courts based their conclusions are sufficient to exclude any concern that the way in which they established and assessed the evidence in the applicant's case was unfair or arbitrary.
69. It follows that this complaint must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

70. 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

71. The applicant claimed 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 30,400 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
72. The Government considered that no award should be made in respect of pecuniary damage in the absence of a causal link between the damage alleged by the applicant and the alleged violation. As regards non-pecuniary damage, the Government considered the applicant's claim excessive and unreasonable. They further suggested that a finding of a violation would in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
73. 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 distress and frustration because of the unreasonable length of the proceedings. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 3,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on that amount.

B. Costs and expenses

74. The applicant also claimed EUR 380 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
75. The Government submitted that no compensation for costs and expenses should be paid to the applicant.
76. 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

> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7