Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.10.2009 "Дело "Племянова (Plemyanova) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

(see Oblov v. Russia, No. 22674/02, § 28, 15 January 2009, with further references).
33. Having regard to the above, to the fact that the case was not complex and that the proceedings within the Court's competence ratione temporis lasted over ten years, the Court considers that the length of the proceedings did not satisfy the "reasonable-time" requirement. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

II. Another alleged violation of the Convention

34. The applicant complained in substance under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the discontinuation decision of 18 April 2007 (see paragraph 17 above).
35. The Court observes that the applicant did not bring an ordinary appeal against this decision. It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

36. 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

37. The applicant claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
38. The Government considered that the claim was excessive and unsubstantiated.
39. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

B. Costs and expenses

40. The applicant also claimed 50,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for legal advice given by a Ms Fomicheva in relation to the proceedings before the Court and RUB 12,799 for various costs and expenses, including postage, incurred at the national level and before the Court.
41. The Government submitted that the second claim was unrelated to the proceedings before the Court.
42. 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 were reasonable as to quantum. The applicant submitted that she was assisted by Ms Fomicheva, deputy director of the Krasnodar regional society for consumer rights, in the proceedings before the Court and thus claimed reimbursement of RUB 50,000 paid for her advice. It is undisputed that the applicant did pay this sum to the above non-governmental organisation. Regard being had to the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 710 covering costs under all heads.

C. Default interest

43. 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 application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. 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, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 710 (seven hundred ten euros) in respect of costs and expenses, both sums to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple int

> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12