nsider her service as compulsory within the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention (see Sladkov v. Russia, No. 13979/03, § 36, 18 December 2008; Levishchev v. Russia, No. 34672/03, § 32, 29 January 2009).
40. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
V. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
41. 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
42. The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. She also claimed 247,174.95 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of pecuniary damage. This amount represented her estimate of allegedly underpaid emoluments.
43. The Government argued that these claims were excessive, arbitrary, and unsupported by evidence.
44. The Court accepts that the applicant must have been distressed by the quashing of the judgment. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On the other hand, the Court discerns no causal link between the violations found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
B. Costs and expenses
45. The applicant also claimed RUB 61,956.78 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
46. The Government argued that this claim was unsupported by evidence.
47. 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 were reasonable as to quantum. 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 and considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,500 for the proceedings before the Court.
C. Default interest
48. 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 complaints concerning supervisory review, non-enforcement, and the lack of remedies against non-enforcement admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the supervisory review;
3. Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint concerning the non-enforcement of the judgment of 15 March 2004;
4. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 1 June 2006;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
6. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
