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

8, 7 June 2007).
25. In the present case insofar as the applicant did not receive the money he had legitimately expected to receive under the quashed final appeal judgment, there is a causal link between the violations found and the applicant's claims in respect of pecuniary damage.
26. As regards the applicant's claims in respect of his future salary loss, however, they inevitably rely on highly speculative assumptions that veil them in a great deal of uncertainty (Parolov v. Russia, No. 44543/04, § 45, 14 June 2007).
27. The Court therefore can only award in respect of pecuniary damage the sums which would have been paid under the appeal judgment quashed by way of supervisory review (EUR 4,640).
28. The Court furthermore finds that the applicant has suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of the violation found which cannot be compensated by the mere finding of a violation. Having regard to the circumstances of the cases and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards to applicant the sum of EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

B. Costs and expenses

29. The applicants also claimed RUB 4,000 for the costs and expenses incurred.
30. The Government asserted that the applicant had failed to substantiate the claims.
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 documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 68.

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 application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in respect of the quashing by way of supervisory review of the final appeal judgment in the applicant's favour;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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 4,640 (four thousand six hundred and forty euros), in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR 68 (sixty eight euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 February 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Nina {VAJIC}
President

{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar

> 1 2 3