Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 30.04.2009 "Дело "Гасанова (Gasanova) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

A. Damage

38. The applicant claimed 242,393 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of pecuniary damage which included the compensation for the repairs which she had carried out in her flat together with indexation in accordance with the refinancing rate of the Russian Central Bank. She also claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
39. The Government contested her claims. They submitted that the applicant had failed to prove a causal relationship between the length of proceedings in her case and her claims.
40. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, the Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary damage resulting from the lengthy examination of her case. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards award her EUR 2,400 under that head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Costs and expenses

41. The applicant also claimed RUB 74,466 for expenses related to legal representation in the domestic proceedings. In support of her claim she submitted a contract concluded between her and a certain A. Under that contract A. was to provide the applicant with legal support for any claims the applicant would bring before the courts. The applicant also claimed RUB 428 for postal expenses incurred before the Court.
42. The Government contested these claims.
43. 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 Court notes that throughout the proceedings the applicant represented herself. The contract concluded with A. indicated that the latter would provide the applicant with legal advice for any claims brought by the applicant before courts. The Court considers that from that document it is not clear that the applicant has paid for legal advice related to the proceedings examined in the present case. Regard being had to the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings. On the other hand the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 10 in respect of postal expenses occurred before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

C. Default interest

44. 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 excessive length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
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 2,400 (two thousand four hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10 (ten euros) in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts, 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 amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage po

> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12