Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 11.02.2010 "Дело "Кучеров и Фролова (Kucherov and Frolova) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Having deliberated in private on 21 January 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 14390/05) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by two Russian nationals, Mr Yengeniy Ivanovich Kucherov and Mrs Marina Vasilyevna Frolova ("the applicants"), on 28 February 2005.
2. The applicants were represented by Mr A. Maysak, a lawyer practising in Belgorod. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 19 February 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

4. The applicants were born in 1959 and 1967 respectively and live in Belgorod.
5. On 16 November 2002 the applicants' minor son died in a building site accident.

A. Proceedings for non-pecuniary damage

6. Considering that the private construction company working on the site was responsible for the accident, the applicants sued the company for non-pecuniary damage.
7. On 26 December 2003 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Belgorod granted their claim in part and ordered the company to pay the applicants 400,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for non-pecuniary damage and RUB 5,000 for legal assistance costs.
8. On 24 February 2004 the Belgorod Regional Court, acting on appeal, reduced the award to RUB 300,000.
9. In March 2004 the enforcement proceedings were stayed as the respondent had applied for supervisory review of the case.
10. On 29 April 2004 the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court quashed the judgment of 26 December 2003 and the appeal judgment of 24 February 2004 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
11. On 8 June 2004 the Sverdlovskiy District Court granted the applicants' claims in part and awarded them RUB 100,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
12. On 3 August 2004 the Belgorod Regional Court, acting on appeal, amended the judgment increasing the sum to RUB 200,000. The appeal judgment became enforceable on the same day.
13. In September 2004 the enforcement proceedings were stayed as the respondent had again applied for supervisory review of the case.
14. On 7 October 2004 the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court reassessed the evidence, quashed the appeal judgment of 3 August 2004 and remitted the case for fresh consideration on appeal.
15. On 26 October 2004 the Belgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment of 8 June 2004 on appeal. The award to be paid to the applicants was, accordingly, RUB 100,000.
16. In November 2004 the judgment was enforced.

B. Proceedings for pecuniary damage

17. On an unspecified date one of the applicants, Mr Kucherov, sued the construction company for pecuniary damage.
18. On 11 February 2004 the Sverdlovskiy District Court granted the claim in part and awarded him RUB 59,273.
19. On 13 April 2004 the Belgorod Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
20. On 6 July 2004 the Sverdlovskiy District Court awarded Mr Kucherov RUB 94,468.
21. On 17 August 2004 the Belgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment with minor changes, having reduced the award due to RUB 86,326. The judgment became final and binding

> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 8