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

losses sustained by the applicant (see paragraph 4 above).
10. The expert submitted that the value of the plot of land in question was equal to 8,348 Russian roubles (RUB) in February 2003 when the judgments in the applicant's favour had been quashed in supervisory-review procedure. He further submitted that the current value of the plot of land amounted to RUB 154,438.
11. The Court reiterates that the most appropriate form of redress in respect of the violations found would be to put the applicant as far as possible in the position she would have been had the Convention requirements not been disregarded (see Piersack v. Belgium (Article 50), 26 October 1984, § 12, Series A No. 85, and, mutatis mutandis, {Gencel} v. Turkey, No. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003). The Court considers that this principle should apply in the present case (see Dovguchits v. Russia, No. 2999/03, § 48, 7 June 2007, and Kulkov and Others v. Russia, Nos. 25114/03, 11512/03, 9794/05, 37403/05, 13110/06, 19469/06, 42608/06, 44928/06, 44972/06 and 45022/06, § 62, 8 January 2009).
12. The applicant was prevented from enjoying the plot of land, the title to which had been registered in her name following the binding and enforceable judgments delivered by domestic courts. Accordingly the Court awards the applicant the current cost of the disputed plot of land, as determined by the expert, to be converted in euros, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
13. The Court furthermore finds that the applicant has suffered non-pecuniary damage resulting from the quashing of the judgments in her favour by way of supervisory review, which cannot be compensated by the mere finding of a violation. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and making its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicant a sum of EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Costs and expenses

14. The applicant requested reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings in the amount of EUR 609.
15. The Government contended that no compensation of costs and expenses should be awarded to the applicant since she had failed to substantiate her claim with any receipts or vouchers on the basis of which the amount claimed could be established.
16. 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 are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court rejects the applicant's claim because there is no causal link between the violation found and the claimed expenses.

C. Default interest

17. 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. 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, converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 3,500 (three thousand five hundred euros) in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on the above amounts;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equa

> 1 2 3