Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.12.2009 «Дело Игнатьева (Ignatyeva) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF IGNATYEVA v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 10277/05)

JUDGMENT <*>
(Just satisfaction)

(Strasbourg, 22.XII.2009)

--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Ignatyeva v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Nina {Vajic} <*>, President,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 December 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 10277/05) 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 a Russian national, Ms Vera Pavlovna Ignatyeva ("the applicant"), on 22 June 2003.
2. In a judgment delivered on 3 April 2008 ("the principal judgment"), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the quashing of the final judgments of 3 May and 14 May 2001 by way of supervisory review (Ignatyeva v. Russia, No. 10277/05).
3. Under Article 41 of the Convention the applicant sought just satisfaction of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages sustained as a result of the above violations and reimbursement of costs and expenses.
4. Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready to be decided upon, the Court reserved judgment and invited the Government and the applicant to submit, within three months, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (ibid., § 60, and point 3 of the operative provisions). The Court also appointed an expert to carry out an evaluation in respect of the pecuniary losses sustained by the applicant. On 15 April 2009 the expert submitted his report in this connection.
5. The applicant and the Government each filed observations on 10 June and 2 July 2008 respectively.

THE LAW

6. 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

7. The applicant claimed 86,843 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, arguing that this represented the sum which she could have recovered from the disputed plot of land by harvesting it in the period from April 1996 to the present moment had her title to it not been contested. She further claimed EUR 12,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
8. The Government argued that there was no causal link between the violation found and the alleged pecuniary damage. As regards the applicant's claims in respect of the non-pecuniary damage, the Government contended that they were unreasonable and excessive.
9. After having consulted the parties, the Court appointed the expert in order to access the pecuniary

> 1 2 3