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

of Article 41 of the Convention

61. 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

62. The applicant claimed 300,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
63. The Government submitted that there had been no violation of the applicant's rights set out in the Convention. In any event, they considered the applicant's claims excessive and suggested that the acknowledgment of a violation would constitute adequate just satisfaction.
64. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. The Court considers that the applicant suffered non-pecuniary damage, which would not be adequately compensated by the finding of a violation alone. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 2,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable. The Court further notes that Article 413 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure provides that criminal proceedings may be reopened if the Court finds a violation of the Convention.

B. Costs and expenses

65. The applicant also claimed compensation, without specifying the amount, for the legal advice provided by his representatives on a pro bono basis in the proceedings before the Court.
66. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to substantiate his claims for compensation of costs and expenses and that they should be rejected in full.
67. 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, the amount of EUR 850 has already been paid to the applicant by way of legal aid. In such circumstances, the Court does not consider it necessary to make an award under this head.

C. Default interest

68. 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. Joins to the merits the Government's objection concerning the victim status of the applicant and rejects it;
2. Declares the complaint concerning unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention;
4. 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 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 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 interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 July 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Nina {VAJIC}
President

> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9