Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 29.01.2009 «Дело Левищев (Levishchev) против России» [англ.]

r compelling him to labour. Admittedly, the "flatless" discharge would have entailed economic hardship for the applicant. But this hardship cannot be equated with the compulsion prohibited by Article 4 of the Convention.
33. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

III. Other alleged violations of the Convention

34. Lastly, the applicant complained under Articles 6, 8, and 14 of the Convention, and Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 that the flat he received was too small for his family.
35. However, in the light of all the 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.

IV. 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 applicant claimed 250,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage alone. The Government argued that this claim was excessive. The Court accepts that the applicant must have been distressed by the delayed enforcement of the judgment. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards EUR 2,000 under this head.

B. Costs and expenses

38. The applicant claimed no costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court makes no award under this head.

C. Default interest

39. 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 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;
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 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 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 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 the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 January 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Peer LORENZEN
President

Claudia WESTERDIEK
Registrar

> 1 ... 2 3 4