dged several other complaints concerning the above proceedings, referring to Articles 6, 8 and 9 of the Convention.
36. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the aforementioned provisions. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
37. 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
38. In respect of compensation for the pecuniary damage, one of the applicants, Mr Kucherov, claimed 3,351 euros (EUR). In respect of non-pecuniary damage each applicant claimed EUR 160,000.
39. The Government contested the claims.
40. The Court recalls that in general the most appropriate form of redress in respect of violations found is to put applicants as far as possible in the position they would have been in if the Convention requirements had not been disregarded (see, amongst other authorities, Piersack v. Belgium (Article 50), judgment of 26 October 1984, § 12, Series A No. 85, and Dovguchits v. Russia, No. 2999/03, § 48, 7 June 2007).
41. In the present case insofar as Mr Kucherov did not receive the money he had legitimately expected to receive under the quashed final judgments, there is a causal link between the violations found and the claim in respect of pecuniary damage. Therefore the Court awards Mr Kucherov EUR 3,335.
42. The Court furthermore finds that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of the violation found which cannot be compensated by the mere finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards each of the applicants EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
B. Costs and expenses
43. The applicants also claimed EUR 2,131 for Mr Kucherov and EUR 639 for Mrs Frolova for the costs and expenses incurred.
44. The Government contested the claim.
45. According to the Court's case-law, applicants are 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 grant the claims in full and awards Mr Kucherov EUR 2,131 and Mrs Frolova EUR 639.
C. Default interest
46. 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 the supervisory review proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the quashing of the judgments in the applicants' favour via supervisory review;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay, 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 applicabl
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
