ent
(a) Pecuniary damage
25. The Court recalls that the most appropriate form of redress in respect of the violations found would be to put the applicants as far as possible in the position they would have been if the Convention requirements had not been disregarded (see Piersack v. Belgium (Article 50), 26 October 1984, Series A No. 85, p. 16, § 12, and, mutatis mutandis, {Gencel} v. Turkey, No. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003). The Court considers that this principle should apply in the present cases as it did in numerous similar ones decided in the past (see Dovguchits cited above, § 48).
26. The Court therefore finds it appropriate to award the applicants the amounts they would have received under the domestic judgments in their favour. On the other hand, the Court cannot grant the applicants' claims in so far as they include the monthly payments allegedly due after the quashing of the domestic judgments on supervisory review and the ensuing dismissal of the applicants' claims by the domestic courts (Tarnopolskaya and Others v. Russia, Nos. 11093/07 et al., § 51, 7 July 2009).
27. The Court accordingly awards the following amounts:
400 euros (EUR) to Mr Davletkhanov;
EUR 2,380 to Mr Spivak;
EUR 1,010 to Mr Kutsevalov;
EUR 1,270 to Mr Puryatkin.
(b) Non-pecuniary damage
28. With reference to its established case-law in similar cases the Court finds that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of the violations found which cannot be compensated by the mere finding of a violation. Having regard to the circumstances of the cases and making its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards to each applicant a sum of EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
29. In three cases (Davletkhanov, Puryatkin and Kutsevalov) the applicants claimed certain amounts for costs and expenses (see details in the table below).
30. The Government found those claims unsubstantiated. In the case of Davletkhanov the Government conceded that the applicant substantiated a part of the claims.
31. The Court reiterates that 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. Regard being had to the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court decides to grant the applicants' claims in the cases of Kutsevalov and Puryatkin, and to grant them in part in the case of Davletkhanov (EUR 150).
C. Default interest
32. 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 concerning the quashing of the binding and enforceable judgments in supervisory-review proceedings 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 into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of the settlement:
(i) in respect of pecuniary damage:
EUR 400 (four hundre
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
