ition, the Court notes and the parties do not dispute that on 12 May 2008 the District Court found that the length of the civil proceedings in the applicant's case had been excessive and awarded him compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The judgment of 12 May 2008 was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court and became final on 28 August 2008. Accordingly, the Court accepts the Government's argument that the Russian authorities acknowledged a violation of the applicant's right to have his case decided within "a reasonable time".
(b) Whether the redress afforded was appropriate and sufficient
38. As regards the second condition, namely, appropriate and sufficient redress, the Court notes from the outset that the applicant did not complain that the remedy to which he had resorted had not been effective within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention. His grievances concerned only the amount of the compensation awarded and the delays in its payment. The Court will examine them accordingly.
(i) Amount awarded
39. The Court reiterates that the amount awarded on account of a violation of the reasonable-time requirement is one of the characteristics of sufficient redress which may remove a litigant's victim status (see Scordino, cited above, § 202 in fine). It has held in other length-of-proceedings cases that in assessing the amount of compensation awarded by domestic courts, it considers, on the basis of the material in its possession, what it would have done in the same position for the period taken into account by the domestic court (ibid., § 211).
40. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that the applicant claimed RUB 200,000 in respect of pecuniary damage when lodging his application for compensation before the court at the first level of jurisdiction. The District Court granted his claim in full. The applicant later changed his mind and asked the Regional Court to increase the amount awarded on appeal. The Regional Court refused to do so noting that the applicant's new claim was unsubstantiated and belated. In this respect the Court reiterates that the domestic courts are clearly in a better position to determine the existence and quantum of pecuniary damage caused (see Scordino, cited above, § 203). The Court discerns nothing in the applicant's submissions for it to question the domestic courts' findings concerning the compensation awarded for pecuniary damage.
41. The Court further observes that the compensation awarded to the applicant for non-pecuniary damage amounted to RUB 100,000, which constitutes approximately EUR 2,754. When determining the amount of the award, the domestic courts took into account the applicant's "advanced age, health condition and disability". Even though the relevant judgments remain silent as to the method of calculation, the Court notes that the amount awarded is comparable to what it generally awards in similar Russian cases. It considers accordingly that the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage awarded to the applicant was not unreasonable.
(ii) Actual payment of the award to the applicant
42. The Court observes that the judgment awarding the applicant compensation on account of the excessive length of proceedings in his case came into force on 28 August 2008. The authorities paid the judgment debt in full to the applicant twenty days after that date, that is, on 17 September 2008. Having regard to its established case-law, that the period of enforcement in respect of a compensatory remedy designed to redress the consequences of excessively lengthy proceedings should not generally exceed six months from the date on which the decision awarding compensation becomes enforceable (see Scordino, cited above, § 198 in fine), the Court considers that the domestic authorities duly complied with the respective obligat
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 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
