Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 04.11.2010 «Дело Муминов (Muminov) против России» [англ.]

e Court's view, in such a situation it could be expected of the respondent Government that they would cooperate fully in the conduct of the subsequent proceedings, in particular by helping, by appropriate means, to re-establish contact between the applicant and his representative and/or between the applicant and the Court (see, in that connection, Article 38 of the Convention and Rule 44A of the Rules of Court). However, it does not appear that such cooperation has been forthcoming (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above).
18. The Court has found a combination of serious violations in the present case. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant's suffering and frustration cannot be compensated for by a mere finding of a violation. In view of the considerations in the preceding paragraphs, having regard to the nature of the violations found in the principal judgment and making an assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
19. The Court also reiterates that the Convention must be interpreted and applied in such a way as to guarantee rights that are practical and effective (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], No. 35382/97, § 35, ECHR 2000-IV, and, mutatis mutandis, Lesnova v. Russia, No. 37645/04, § 25, 24 January 2008). Given the particular circumstances of the present case and the nature of the violations found, the Court considers that the respondent State shall secure, by appropriate means, the execution of the just satisfaction award, in particular, by facilitating contact between the applicant, on the one hand, and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe acting under Article 46 of the Convention, the applicant's representative in the Convention proceedings or any other person entitled or authorised to represent the applicant in the enforcement proceedings, on the other.

B. Costs and expenses

20. Since no claim was made under this head, the Court considers that there is no call to make any award.

C. Default interest

21. 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

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 20,000 (twenty thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(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;
(c) that the respondent State, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, shall secure, by appropriate means, payment of the above amount, in particular by facilitating contact between the applicant, on the one hand, and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the applicant's representative in the Convention proceedings or any other person entitled or authorised to represent the applicant in the enforcement proceedings, on the other.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 November 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Christos ROZAKIS
President

{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar






> 1 ... 2 3 4

	Поделиться:	Tweet