Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.06.2009 "Дело "Новиков (Novikov) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are 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 is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

56. 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

57. The applicant claimed 452,440 Russian roubles (RUB) for the value of the fuel seized by the authorities and RUB 109,490 in inflation losses for the period from 1998 to 2006. He also claimed RUB 1,809,790 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
58. The Government considered that no just satisfaction should be awarded to the applicant. They submitted that his pecuniary claim for the value of the fuel should be rejected in view of the findings made by the civil courts. The non-pecuniary award should not in any event exceed the award made by the Court in Baklanov v. Russia, No. 68443/01, § 51, 9 June 2005.
59. First, the Court reiterates its above finding that since October 2001 the applicant had a valid claim in respect of the fuel, which had been seized by the national authorities in 1998, and that their failure to return it or pay compensation amounted to a disproportionate interference in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Having regard to the information provided by the applicant and uncontested by the Government, the Court awards the applicant 13,300 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage on account of the value of the fuel, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. At the same time, the Court rejects as unfounded the applicant's claim for inflation losses.
60. Lastly, the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes just satisfaction in so far as the applicant's non-pecuniary claim is concerned.

B. Costs and expenses

61. The applicant claimed EUR 2,640 for the legal services of his two representatives before the Court.
62. The Government considered that the applicant had made no claims under this head.
63. The Court observes that each representative claimed EUR 1,320 for twenty-six hours' work. It is noted that an amount of EUR 850 was already paid to the lawyers by way of legal aid under Rule 91 § 1 of the Rules of Court. The applicant did not submit a copy of any agreement showing that he had already incurred the above expenses or was under a legally enforceable obligation to pay any fee to his lawyers (see Salmanov v. Russia, No. 3522/04, § 98, 31 July 2008). The Court therefore rejects the applicant's claim under this head.

C. Default interest

64. 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. Declares the complaint concerning the authorities' failure to return the fuel or to pay compensation admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
3. 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 13,300 (thirtee

> 1 2 3 ... 22 23 24