. On 19 March 2008 the applicant brought an action against the Ministry of Finance and the Treasury seeking compensation for damage resulting from the excessive length of the proceedings concerning the property dispute with his former partner. The applicant asked the court to award him RUB 200,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and RUB 2,000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
29. On 12 May 2008 the Pervomaiskiy District Court of Krasnodar granted the applicant's claims in full in respect of pecuniary damage and in part in respect of non-pecuniary damage and awarded him RUB 100,000 under that head. The court indicated that it had made the assessment of the non-pecuniary damage on an equitable basis and took into account the applicant's "advanced age, health condition and disability". The applicant appealed, asking the court to increase the amount of compensation awarded for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
30. On 28 August 2008 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the judgment of 12 May 2008 on appeal. As regards the pecuniary damage, the court noted that the District Court had granted the applicant's claims in full and there was no reason to increase that amount. Had the applicant considered it necessary to increase his claims in this respect, he should have done so before the court at the first level of jurisdiction.
31. On 17 September 2008 the applicant received the monies.
II. Relevant domestic law
32. For a summary of domestic law provisions on civil-law remedies in respect of the delayed enforcement of judgments against the State, see the case of Burdov v. Russia (No. 2) (Burdov v. Russia (No. 2), No. 33509/04, §§ 26 - 29, ECHR 2009-...).
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
on account of the excessive length of the civil proceedings
33. The applicant complained that the civil proceedings which ended with the judgment of 23 December 2003 had been unreasonably long in contravention of Article 6 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations... everyone is entitled to a... hearing within a reasonable time by [a]... tribunal..."
Admissibility
1. The parties' submissions
34. The Government submitted that the Russian authorities had taken measures to remedy the violation of the applicant's rights set out in Article 6 § 1 at the domestic level and that the applicant had lost his victim status. In particular, on 12 May 2008 the Pervomaiskiy District Court of Krasnodar had granted the applicant's claims and awarded him compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the excessive length of the civil proceedings in question. They considered that the amount awarded to the applicant had constituted an adequate redress and was comparable with and even exceeded the amounts the Court normally awarded in similar Russian cases.
35. The applicant contended that the amounts awarded had been too low to constitute an adequate redress for the damage incurred. He also considered that the enforcement of the judgment of 12 May 2008 had been excessively delayed, not having been enforced until 17 September 2008.
2. The Court's assessment
36. The Court reiterates that an applicant is deprived of his or her victim status if the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded appropriate and sufficient redress for, a breach of the Convention (see, for example, Scordino v. Italy (No. 1) [GC], No. 36813/97, §§ 178 - 93, ECHR 2006-V).
(a) Whether the domestic authorities acknowledged the violation of the applicant's right
37. As regards the first cond
> 1 2 3 4 ... 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
