Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 21.10.2010 «Дело Ленченков и другие (Lenchenkov and others) против России» [англ.]

dered the claims excessive and unsubstantiated. In the case of Mr Zaytsev they contested the method of calculation.
33. The Court reiterates that in general the most appropriate form of redress in respect of violations found is to put applicants as far as possible in the position they would have been in if the Convention requirements had not been disregarded (see Piersack v. Belgium (Article 50), 26 October 1984, § 12, Series A No. 85, and, Dovguchits, cited above, § 48).
34. Therefore in the case of Mr Lenchenkov the Court grants the claim of the sum which had been awarded by the quashed judgment, that is RUB 110,532.45 (EUR 2,821). As to the adjustment claimed by Mr Lenchenkov, it observes that he failed to make the relevant calculations. The Court notes that it is ill-equipped to make the relevant calculations for the applicant. Therefore the claim for the adjustment is rejected.
35. In the case of Mr Bobarykin the Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged. Moreover, the applicant was paid a compensation for the demolished garage (see paragraph 10 above). Therefore the claim should be rejected.
36. In the case of Ms Kolesnikova the Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged, either. The judgment in her favour was being enforced until its quashing via supervisory review (see paragraph 12 above). As to the claim for restoration of the payments, no pecuniary awards can be made for the periods after the final judgment has been quashed (see Tarnopolskaya and Others v. Russia, Nos. 11093/07 et seq., § 51, 7 July 2009).
37. As to the case of Mr Zaytsev, the final judgment did not award the applicant any specific sum and the Court cannot assume the role of the national authorities in calculating the sums due as a result of the judgment. As regards the calculations submitted by the applicant, the Court, like the Government, doubts the correctness of the method used as the ensuing amount claimed by the applicant (some EUR 13,000,000) is excessive and unreasonable. In these circumstances it rejects the applicant's claim for pecuniary damage.
38. As to non-pecuniary damage in all the above cases, the Court considers that the applicants must have suffered distress and frustration resulting from quashing of the final judgments. However, the amount claimed appears excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards Mr Lenchenkov, Mr Bobarykin, Ms Kolesnikova and Mr Zaytsev Yevgeniy EUR 3,000 each, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

B. Costs and expenses

39. The applicant made no claims under this head. Accordingly, the Court will make no award under this head.

C. Default interest

40. 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. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints lodged by Lenchenkov Vladimir, Bobarykin Viktor, Kolesnikova Tamara and Zaytsev Yevgeniy concerning supervisory review of final judgments in their favour admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in all cases on account of the quashing of the judgments in the applicants' favour by way of supervisory review;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following sums to be converted int



> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6

	Поделиться:	Tweet