Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.07.2009 «Дело Марковцы и Селиванов (Markovtsi and Selivanov) против России» [англ.]

cordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

V. 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 first applicant claimed the amount awarded to him by the final judgment in his favour, i.e. 102,056 Russian roubles (RUB), in respect of pecuniary damage and 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The second applicant claimed RUB 194,553.80 representing the present-day value of a Russian-made passenger car in respect of pecuniary damage. He further stated that he had suffered non-pecuniary damage without specifying the amount claimed under this head.
38. The Government argued that the applicants' claims for pecuniary damage were unreasonable, since the applicants had no right to receive a full value of the car under the domestic law. They pointed out that in November 2004 the first applicant received compensation in extra-judicial proceedings. The claim for non-pecuniary damage was unsubstantiated.
39. The Court reiterates that the best redress of a violation of Article 6 is to put the applicant as far as possible in the position he would have been if Article 6 had been respected (see Piersack v. Belgium (Article 50), judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A No. 85, § 12). The Court finds that in the present case this principle applies as well, having regard to the violations found (cf. Abdulmanova v. Russia, No. 41564/05, § 25, 16 October 2008).
40. Applied to the second applicant's case, this principle would mean that the State must pay to the applicant the amount he should have received under the initial judgment in his favour. As regards the remainder of his claims, the Court notes that the applicant did not explain his method of calculation of the present-day car value or produce any documents he had used for calculations. Accordingly, the Court awards to Mr Selivanov EUR 3,978 under this head and dismisses the remainder of his claims in respect of pecuniary damage.
41. As regards the first applicant, the Court notes that in November 2004 he received the partial compensation of the promissory note value, although in a lower amount than provided for by the initial judgment. Deducting the sum which the Ministry of Finance has already paid to the applicant on 26 November 2004, the Court considers that the Government should pay the remaining part of the judgment award made by the domestic courts under the judgment of 18 March 2003, (see, mutatis mutandis, Almayeva v. Russia, No. 966/03, § 42, 25 October 2007, and Kudrina v. Russia, No. 27790/03, § 37, 21 June 2007) which was equivalent to approximately EUR 1,460 on the date when the applicant submitted his claims. The remainder of his claims in respect of pecuniary damage should be dismissed.
42. The Court further considers that the applicants must have suffered distress from the non-enforcement and quashing of the judgments. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards each of the applicants EUR 3,000 under this head.

B. Costs and expenses

43. The Court reiterates that, according to its 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.

1. The first applicant

44. The first applicant claimed RUB 187 of postal expenses. The Government argued that the applicant only substantiated his claim in respect of RUB 107.
45. In

> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 7