Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.02.2010 «Дело Грибаненков (Gribanenkov) против России» [англ.]

ve expedited the determination of the applicant's case or provided him with adequate redress for the delays that had already occurred.
50. Accordingly, the Court considers that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that the applicant had no domestic remedy whereby he could enforce his right to a "hearing within a reasonable time" as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

51. 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

52. The applicant submitted that had the judgment of 6 December 2004 been taken earlier, before 29 May 2004 when a relevant legal provision was changed, he would have been awarded monthly payments of 32,633.5 Russian roubles (RUB) instead of RUB 28,205.27. He took into account the average life expectancy, calculated his future losses and claimed RUB 514,382.84 in respect of pecuniary damage caused by the excessive length of the proceedings.
53. He also claimed 35,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage caused by lengthy proceedings and non-enforcement.
54. The Government submitted that no satisfaction should be awarded since the applicant had failed to substantiate his allegedly excessive and unreasonable claims. They also submitted that if the Court found a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, that finding would be adequate just satisfaction.
55. The Court observes, in respect of the pecuniary damage, that the claim concerns the second set of proceedings, which ended with the judgment of 6 December 2004. The Court declared that complaint inadmissible (see paragraph 35 above). The applicant has not claimed pecuniary damage in respect of the part of the application in which violations have been found. Therefore no pecuniary award is made.
56. As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the applicant must have suffered distress and frustration resulting from the authorities' failure to duly enforce the judgments in his favour. However, the amount claimed appears excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 3,100 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

B. Costs and expenses

57. The applicant made no claims under this head. Accordingly, the Court will make no award.

C. Default interest

58. 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 complaints concerning non-enforcement, the length of the first set of proceedings and the lack of a relevant effective remedy against such length of proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of non-enforcement of the judgments of 28 November 2003 as upheld on 14 January 2004, and of 6 December 2004;
3. Holds that there has been violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the length of the proceedings which ended with the judgment of 28 November 2003 as upheld on 14 January 2004;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of lack of an effective remedy against the excessive length of civil proce

> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6