novskiy, cited above, § 43). As a result of the first set of re-trial proceedings the applicant, a disabled person residing with his wife and two daughters in a 11 square metres' hostel room (see paragraphs 7 and 24 above), could not, for a significant period of time, rely on and benefit from the final judgment of 5 July 2000 as to his immediate provision of housing (see, mitatis mutandis, Dovguchits v. Russia, No. 2999/03, § 35, 7 June 2007).
47. Accordingly, there has also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account
of non-enforcement
48. The applicant complained in substance under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment of 5 July 2000 was not enforced in good time.
49. The Government argued that the period of non-enforcement was short and there were no periods of the authorities' inactivity.
50. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
51. The Court observes that the judgment of 5 July 2000 remained unenforced for more than four years and that the major part of this delay was due to the modification of this judgment via the first round of supervisory review. Given its finding of violation of the right to court on account of supervisory review (see paragraphs 40 - 44 above) the Court does not consider it necessary to examine separately the issue of non-enforcement of the same judgment.
III. Other alleged violations of the Convention
52. The applicant also lodged several other complaints concerning the above proceedings, referring to Articles 3, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention.
53. 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 aforementioned provisions. 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
54. 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
55. The applicant claimed 1,026,683 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of pecuniary damage he had sustained as a result of non-enforcement of the judgment of 5 July 2000.
56. He also claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
57. The Government contested the claims.
1. Pecuniary damage
58. The applicant submitted documents according to which he spent RUB 79,000 for housing during the period from 10 August 2001 when the Presidium of the Supreme Court modified the judgment in the applicant's favour to his detriment, to 12 November 2003 when the validity of this judgment was restored.
59. The Court observes that, indeed, had this judgment been stayed in force as it was, and had the applicant been provided with housing in accordance with that judgment, he would not have sustained these losses. There has been therefore a causal link between the violation found and the applicant's claim for the pecuniary damage in this part.
60. The Court further notes that the most appropr
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 7
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
