ion complaining about the bailiffs' failure to enforce the judgment of 21 October 2000. By the competent court's judgment of 9 April 2001 their action was upheld.
29. The first two flats were offered to the applicants by the bailiff in September and October 2001.
30. The Court takes cognisance of the fact that by a judgment of 23 August 2005, as upheld on 18 July 2006, the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicants' action for compensation for the delayed enforcement, having found that the flats offered to them in September and October 2001 had met the requirements of the housing legislation and that their refusal to accept these flats had been unjustified.
31. The Court also observes that the applicants failed to adduce sufficient evidence which could convince it that the above said flats had been unsuitable for living, had not satisfied housing standards or had been otherwise ineligible.
32. The Court reiterates that the domestic courts are in a better position to assess evidence before them, establish facts and interpret domestic law. Hence, it accepts the Government's argument that the delays in the enforcement proceedings occurred after October 2001 were attributable to the applicants' conduct.
33. However, it should be noted that by failing to take adequate measures to enforce the binding judgment, the State authorities prevented the applicants from enjoying its benefits during a period of one year and seven months, that is from 28 February 2000, the date when the enforcement proceedings officially started, to October 2001, the moment when the applicants refused to accept the eligible flats offered by the authorities. The Court also observes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument in order to justify this period of non-enforcement.
34. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
III. Other alleged violations of the Convention
35. The applicants raised various other complaints under Articles 2, 3, 6 § 1, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention.
36. Having considered their submissions in the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that, in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.
37. It follows that these parts of the application must be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
38. 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
39. The applicants claimed 800,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
40. The Government contested the claim as unsubstantiated.
41. Making an assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicants jointly EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
42. The applicants did not claim reimbursement of their costs and expenses incurred before the domestic authorities and the Court. Accordingly, the Court does not make any award under this head.
C. Default interest
43. 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 ad
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
