Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.09.2009 "Дело "Жаркова (Zharkova) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

ignificant delays in the proceedings are attributable to the domestic courts.
32. The Court finally notes that the proceedings in the present case concerned a labour dispute between the applicant and her former employer and required a particular diligence on the part of the domestic courts.
33. In the light of the criteria laid down in its case-law, and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

II. Other alleged violations of the Convention

34. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts had wrongly applied substantive law. She finally complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the domestic courts had refused to index-link the amount of compensation for the delayed payment of her salary. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as those complaints fall 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 Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

35. 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

36. The applicant considered that the amount of compensation awarded by the domestic courts had lost its value because the proceedings had lasted a very long time and the domestic courts had refused to index-link the awards. She claimed 3,927 euros (EUR) in that respect. She further claimed EUR 4,708 in respect of pecuniary damage caused by the late payment of her salary and EUR 2,116 for loss of profit which she could have made if she had received her salary without delay. Finally, the applicant claimed EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
37. The Government contested these claims.
38. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the applicant's claims for pecuniary damage; it therefore rejects her claims in that part. On the other hand, the Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary damage as a result of the lengthy examination of her claim. Ruling on an equitable basis and having regard to the nature of the proceedings in the present case, the Court awards the applicant EUR 4,800 under that head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Costs and expenses

39. The applicant also claimed EUR 31 for costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
40. The Government accepted the applicant's claims under that head.
41. 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 considers that the sum claimed should be awarded in full, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

C. Default interest

42. 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

> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11