Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 25.02.2010 «Дело Куприны (Kupriny) против России» [англ.]

t must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

48. The Government submitted that the applicants had had at their disposal domestic remedies to complain about the length of the proceedings. They had applied to the Judiciary Qualification Board of the Tula Region and to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
49. The applicants maintained their complaint.
50. The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see {Kudla} v. Poland, No. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI). Furthermore, an effective remedy required by Article 13 is intended to be capable of either expediting the proceedings or providing the applicant with adequate redress for delays that have already occurred (see {Kudla}, cited above, §§ 157 - 159).
51. The Court finds that even if the verifications carried out by the Judiciary Qualification Board and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (see paragraphs 30 and 32 above) may be considered as having expedited proceedings in the applicants' case, they did not provide the applicants with adequate redress for delays that had already occurred. The Court notes that the Government did not indicate any other remedy that could have expedited the determination of the applicants' case or provided them with adequate redress for delays that had already occurred (see Klyakhin v. Russia, No. 46082/99, §§ 101 - 102, 30 November 2004, and Sidorenko v. Russia, No. 4459/03, § 39, 8 March 2007).
52. Accordingly, the Court considers that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that the applicants had no domestic remedy under domestic law whereby they could enforce their right to a hearing within a reasonable time as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

53. 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

1. Pecuniary damage

54. Each of the applicants claimed 1,200,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for the loss of the flat and loss of their right to acquire that flat by way of privatisation; RUB 63,000 in respect of the salary which they could have received if they had not spent their time in courts and RUB 42,000 for their belongings which had burnt in the flat.
55. The Government contested those claims.
56. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged for the loss of the flat and loss of right to acquire it by way of privatisation, as well as the loss of the applicants' belongings in the fire. Regarding the applicants' claim for the loss of salary, the Court notes that the applicants have not provided the Court with any document confirming their salary rates on which they had based their calculations. Having regard to the above, the Court rejects the totality of the applicants' claims for pecuniary damage.

2. Non-pecuniary damage

57. The first applicant claimed RUB 800,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the second and the third applicants claimed RUB 600,000 for each of them and the fourth applicant claimed RUB 500,000.
58. The Government contested those claims.
59. The Court considers that the applicants must have sustained non-pecuniary damage as a result of the unreasonably long examination of their claims by domestic courts and

> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7