Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.07.2009 "Дело "Сутяжник (Sutyazhnik) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

or the sake of legal purism, rather than in order to rectify an error of fundamental importance to the judicial system.
39. In sum, in the circumstances of the case the quashing of the judgment of 17 June 1999, as upheld on 18 October 1999, was a disproportionate measure and respect for legal certainty should have prevailed. There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

40. 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

41. The applicant association claimed 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It claimed that for several years it had been unable to obtain re-registration and, therefore, was at risk of liquidation.
42. The Government considered that claim excessive. They indicated that the fear of eventual liquidation was groundless. They submitted that a finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
43. The Court notes that that it is possible to make an award in respect of non-pecuniary damage to a legal person in connection with the "prolonged uncertainty" and "inconvenience" it has suffered in relation to a violation found by the Court (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], No. 35382/97, § 36, ECHR 2000-IV).
44. The Court accepts that the quashing of the judgment of 17 June 1999, as upheld on 18 October 1999, caused the applicant association some inconvenience. At the same time, it appears that the discontinuation of the proceedings ordered by the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court had little effect on the functioning of the applicant association, which furthermore had the possibility to present its request to a court with proper jurisdiction and finally obtained a favourable judgment from such a court. Ruling on an equitable basis, as provided for by Article 41, the Court awards the applicant association EUR 500 for the non-pecuniary damage sustained.

B. Costs and expenses

45. The applicant association did not claim reimbursement of its costs and expenses incurred before the domestic authorities and the Court. Accordingly, the Court does not make any award under this head.

C. Default interest

46. 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

1. Dismisses unanimously the Government's preliminary objection;
2. Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
3. Holds by five votes to two
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant association, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 500 (five hundred Euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(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;
4. Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the applicant association's claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 July 2009, pursuant to

> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 17