Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 30.07.2009 «Дело Хотулева (Khotuleva) против России» [англ.]

nforcement

21. The applicant complained under Article 6 (cited above) of the Convention that the judgment in her favour of 4 April 2000, as upheld on 30 May 2000, was not enforced.
22. The Government contested that argument.
23. As to non-enforcement of the judgment of 4 April 2000 before it was quashed by way of supervisory review on 25 January 2001, it does not raise an issue under Article 6, as the judgment in the applicant's favour was quashed within a relatively short time after it became binding and enforceable (in about ten months). Therefore there was no violation of the Convention in that respect.
24. As to non-enforcement after the quashing, the Court reiterates that the principles insisting that a final judicial decision must not be called into question and should be enforced represent two aspects of the same general concept, namely the right to a court (see Boris Vasilyev v. Russia, No. 30671/03, §§ 41 - 42, 15 February 2007; and Sobelin and others, cited above, §§ 67 - 68). Therefore it considers that there is no separate issue on the matter, having regard to its finding of a violation of Article 6 on account of the quashing of the judgment in supervisory-review proceedings (see 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, § 35, 8 January 2009).

III. Other alleged violations of the Convention

25. Insofar as the applicant invokes Article 1 of the Convention alleging the State's failure to secure her rights, the Court recalls that this provision, even where invoked in conjunction with other Articles, cannot be the subject of a separate violation. No separate issue therefore arises (see, mutatis mutandis, Danini v. Italy, 22998/93, Commission decision of 14 October 1996, Decisions and Reports (DR) 87, p. 24).

IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

26. 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

27. The applicant claimed 100,000 euros (EUR) in respect of damage, not specifying its nature.
28. The Government considered the sum was wholly excessive and fully ungrounded. They submitted that finding of a violation would constitute adequate just satisfaction in the present case.
29. Insofar as the applicant may be understood to claim pecuniary damages, the Court recalls 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 if the Convention requirements had not been disregarded (see, among many authorities, Piersack v. Belgium (Article 50), 26 October 1984, § 12, Series A No. 85; Kondrashov and Others v. Russia, Nos. 2068/03, 2076/03, 5224/03, 5385/03, 5414/03 and 5656/03, § 41, 8 January 2009). The applicant was prevented from receiving the amounts she had legitimately expected to receive under the binding judgment of 4 April 2000, as upheld on 30 May 2000, at least until the subsequent dismissal of her claims by the domestic courts following the supervisory review. However, the judgment did not indicate the specific sums when ordering the authorities to recalculate pension payments, and the applicant did not submit to the Court any calculation of the sums she would have received under that judgment. Her claim for pecuniary damages must therefore be rejected as unsubstantiated.
30. Insofar as the applicant may be understood to claim non-pecuniary damage, the Court takes the view that the applicant must have suffer

> 1 2 3 4