13119/03, § 31, 8 January 2009; and Zaytsev and Others v. Russia, No. 42046/06, § 48, 25 June 2009).
77. The Court recalls that in the present case the applicant had used one of the measures offered by the Government, namely, she had complained to the president of the first-instance court examining her case. However, it does not appear from the submissions that this expedited the proceedings or led to the provision of compensation. As to the other suggested remedies, the Government did not supply any new argument as to whether and how the applicant could obtain effective relief by having recourse to them. Nor did the Government supply any example from domestic practice showing that, by using the means in question, it was possible for the applicant to obtain such relief (see {Kudla}, cited above, § 159). Accordingly, the Court rejects this part of the Government's argument.
78. Turning to the existence of effective remedies against the non-enforcement, the Court observes that the effectiveness of the suggested measures had been refuted in its previous findings (see, in particular, Burdov v. Russia (No. 2), No. 33509/04, § 101 - 116, ECHR 2009-...). In the present case the Government did not provide any information that would warrant a different conclusion.
79. Accordingly, the Court considers that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
80. 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
81. The Court observes that in her submissions the applicant did not make any claims in respect of pecuniary damage, nor did she explicitly request to enforce the judgment of 22 November 2007 in the part ordering construction of the drainage system. However, the Court is of the opinion that the claim for enforcement transpires from the nature of the applicant's complaint.
82. The Court recalls that in general the most appropriate form of redress in respect of violations found is to put applicant as far as possible in the position he or she would have been in if the Convention requirements had not been disregarded (see, among many other authorities, Dovguchits v. Russia, No. 2999/03, § 48, 7 June 2007). Having regard to the violation found on account of the State's failure to enforce the judgment in the applicant's favour, this principle is applicable in the present situation.
83. Therefore the Court considers that the Government shall secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the judgment of 22 November 2007 in the case No. 2-1467-07 (see Lesnova v. Russia, No. 37645/04, § 25, 24 January 2008).
84. The applicant claimed 68,181 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
85. The Government disputed the claim arguing that it was arbitrary and excessive.
86. Referring to its case-law, the Court finds that the applicant suffered some distress and frustration caused by the unreasonable length of the proceedings and by the State's continuing failure to enforce a judgment in her favour. Deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant 5,000 EUR under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
87. The applicant also claimed EUR 493 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts.
88. The Government disagreed with the claim as unsupported by any evidence.
89. The Court observes that the applicant failed to submit any documents that could prove the allegedly sustained expenses. Accordingly, the Court reje
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
