d been referring. They did not comment on the claims by Mrs Sedykh. As regards the claims by Mrs Sadchikova, Mrs Gurova, Mrs Pisareva and Mr Pisarev, the Government submitted that the Russian courts had been better placed to determine the applicants' inflationary loss, and it had remained open to them to apply there. They further objected to the method of calculation suggested by Mrs Gurova arguing that the refinancing rate applicable at the date of the domestic judgment's entry into force, not at the date of the application to the Court, should be taken into account. They did not make comments on the method of calculation proposed by Mrs Sadchikova, Mrs Pisareva and Mr Pisarev.
(b) The Court
40. As regards the application by Mrs Sadchikova (case No. 13570/06), the Court notes that the State's unfulfilled obligation to execute the judgment of 16 February 2001, which has not been enforced to date, is not in dispute in the present case (see paragraph 20 above). The Court therefore considers that the Government should secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the judgment of 16 February 2001 in favour of Mrs G. Sadchikova.
41. The Court further recalls, in respect of all the applications, that the adequacy of the compensation would be diminished if it were to be paid without reference to various circumstances liable to reduce its value, such as an extended delay in enforcement (see Gizzatova v. Russia, No. 5124/03, § 28, 13 January 2005). It also reiterates that applicants cannot be required to exhaust domestic remedies to obtain compensation for pecuniary loss since this would prolong the procedure before the Court in a manner incompatible with the effective protection of human rights (see Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), judgment of 31 October 1995, Series A No. 330 B, § 40, and Gridin v. Russia, No. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006). In the cases at hand, the Court discerns a causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary loss sustained by the applicants. Making its estimate on the basis of the information at its disposal, the Court awards them the amounts as indicated in the relevant part of Appendix II under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable, and dismisses the remainder of their claims for pecuniary damage.
2. Non-pecuniary damage
42. Mrs Kazmina (application No. 746/05) claimed EUR 5,000 in one part of her observations and EUR 3,900 in another part of her observations as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Mrs Sadchikova, Mrs Sedykh, Mrs Gurova, Mrs Pisareva and Mr Pisarev (cases Nos. 13570/06, 13574/06, 13576/06 and 13579/06) each claimed EUR 3,900 under this head.
43. The Government submitted that no award should be made since there had been no violation of the applicants' rights. In any event, they considered the amounts claimed excessive and unreasonable.
44. The Court accepts that the applicants must have been distressed by the delayed enforcement of the judgments. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, and taking into account the delays in execution of the respective judgments in the applicants' favour, the Court awards them the amounts as indicated in the relevant part of Appendix II in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, and dismisses the remainder of their claims under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
45. The Court reiterates that, 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.
1. Claim by Mrs N. Kazmina (application No. 746/05)
46. Mrs Kazmina claimed RUB 431 of the expenses related to copying and postage of the application to the Court. She submi
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 9 ... 10
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
