not been enforced before the quashing, the Court's award includes the equivalent in euros of the initial domestic award and the compensation for loss of value of the awards for the periods preceding the quashing. Where a judgment in an applicant's favour was fully executed before the quashing, the Court's award represents the equivalent in euros of the interest for the period from the domestic judgment's entry into force until the date of its full execution. Where more than one judgment was issued in an applicant's favour, the amount of the Court's award represents a sum of the respective awards calculated in accordance with the method specified above, in respect of each of the quashed domestic judgments.
93. The Court dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claims in respect of pecuniary damage.
2. Non-pecuniary damage
94. The applicants claimed sums ranging from 5,000 to 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
95. The Government challenged the claims as excessive and ill-founded. The applicants did not furnish any documents evidencing the alleged non-pecuniary damage. The judgments were quashed because of the fundamental defect in the proceedings. Nothing should be awarded to the applicants, since there was no violation of their rights.
96. Having regard to the nature of the breach in this case, making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards to each applicant the sum of EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
3. Cases No. 28888/06 and 31419/06
97. The Court decides that the respective awards in case No. 28888/06 should be paid to Mr. V.N. Zakharov and in case No. 31419/06 to Mrs T.N. Melnikova in the place of the deceased applicants.
B. Costs and expenses
98. The applicants did not claim costs and expenses, and there is accordingly no need to make an award under this head.
C. Default interest
99. 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. Holds, in respect of application No. 28888/06, that Mr. V.N. Zakharov has standing to continue the proceedings in Mr N.P. Zakharov's stead;
3. Holds, in respect of application No. 31419/06, that Mrs T.N. Melnikova has standing to continue the proceedings in Mr N.N. Melnikov's stead;
4. Declares, in respect of all applications, the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning non-enforcement and subsequent quashing of the initial judgments in the applicants' favour listed in Annex I admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
5. Holds, in respect of all applications, that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the delayed execution of the judgments in the applicants' favour listed in Annex I;
6. Holds, in respect of all applications, that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the quashing by way of the supervisory-review proceedings of the judgments in the applicants' favour listed in Annex I;
7. Holds, in respect of nineteen applications listed in Part A of Annex I, that there is no need to examine whether there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the quashing by way of the supervisory-review proceedings of the judgments in the applicants' favour;
8. Holds, in respect of sixty-eight applications listed in Part B of Annex I, th
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 ... 36 37 38