8. Mrs Sizintseva claimed 127,825 Russian roubles (RUB) of the judgment debt and RUB 79,080.64 of the interest arising out of the delayed enforcement of the judgment in her favour, calculated on the basis of the refinancing rate of the Central Bank of Russia for the period from the domestic judgment's entry into force until the date of the Court's judgment.
49. Mr Titov claimed RUB 115,000 of a full monetary value of a car as determined by the judgment in his favour, as well as the interest. He had not provided a detailed calculation of the interest. However, he submitted that the market value of a car had increased and amounted to RUB 350,000 on the date of submission of his claim.
50. Mrs Gladkova claimed that RUB 109,609 of the initial judgment debt, as well as RUB 88,739.45 representing the interest calculated at the rate valid on 8 May 2009, the date of submission of her claims, should be awarded to her in respect of pecuniary damage.
51. Mrs V. Plotnikova claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, without further substantiation.
52. Finally, Mrs I. Plotnikova claimed RUB 110,940.96 equalling to the amount of the initial judgment debt.
53. The Government submitted that no just satisfaction award should be made to the applicants, since there had been no violation of their rights. In any event, their claims were excessive and unreasonable. In particular, they argued that Mrs Sizintseva, Gladkova and I. Plotnikova could not claim the interest for the periods following the quashing of the respective judgments in their favour. They pointed out that Mr Titov had neither specified the method of calculation of the interest nor furnished any documents in respect of his claim. The Government further contested the submissions by Mrs V. Plotnikova as unfounded and stressed that she had failed to specify the method of the calculation or to itemise her claims under this head.
(b) The Court's assessment
54. The Court recalls that the most appropriate form of redress in respect of the violations found would be to put the applicants as far as possible in the position they would have been if the Convention requirements had not been disregarded (see Piersack v. Belgium (Article 50), 26 October 1984, Series A No. 85, p. 16, § 12, and, mutatis mutandis, {Gencel} v. Turkey, No. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003). The Court considers that this principle should apply in the present cases.
55. As regards the application by Mrs V. Plotnikova, the Court notes that the initial domestic award had remained unenforced until the date of its quashing and then was reduced as a result of the supervisory-review proceedings. Moreover, it appears that the new judgment debt had not been paid to the applicant either. In these circumstances, the Court awards the applicant the equivalent in euros of the full amount granted by the initial judgment of 24 April 2002 in her favour.
56. As regards the remaining four cases, the Court notes that the applicants were prevented from receiving the amounts they had legitimately expected to receive under the binding and enforceable judgments delivered by domestic courts in their favour. Accordingly the Court considers appropriate to award the applicants the equivalent in euros of the sums that they would have received if the judgments in their favour had not been quashed (see Bolyukh v. Russia, No. 19134/05, § 39, 31 July 2007).
57. The Court further recalls its constant approach that the adequacy of the compensation would be diminished if it were to be paid without reference to various circumstances liable to reduce its value (see, mutatis mutandis, Gizzatova v. Russia, No. 5124/03, § 28, 13 January 2005). The Court accepts the applicants' claims relating to the loss of value of the domestic awards since the delivery of the judgments in their favour and finds it appropriate to award additional
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 10 ... 11
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
