e the debtor company and to create a new one in its place.
73. 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.
II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
74. The applicant further complained under Article 4 of the Convention that she did not receive payment for her work at the municipal enterprise and, under Article 6 of the Convention, that the proceedings in her case had been unfair.
75. The Court has examined these complaints as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, it finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
76. 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
77. The applicant claimed 355,840.98 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of pecuniary damage. Of this sum, RUB 16,632.32 and RUB 50,367.14 represented the debt owed by the enterprise pursuant to the judgments in the applicant's favour, RUB 28,350 was for unpaid severance benefits and RUB 260,504.52 was for inflation losses. In support of her claims, she submitted a detailed calculation of the inflation losses based on the refinancing rate of the Central Bank of Russia. She further claimed 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
78. The Government submitted that no just satisfaction should be awarded to the applicant because her rights under the Convention had not been violated. Alternatively, they argued that the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
79. As regards the claim for pecuniary damage, the Court does not discern any causal link between the claim of unpaid severance and the applicant's non-enforcement complaint; it therefore rejects this claim. At the same time, the Court notes that the judgments of 7 December 2000 and 3 December 2001 have remained unenforced. It further notes that the Government did not comment on the applicant's claims for pecuniary damage and did not object to the method of calculation suggested. Making its estimate on the basis of the information at its disposal, the Court awards her EUR 1,837 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable, and dismisses the remainder of her claims under this head.
80. As regards the claim for non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 3,000 plus any tax that may be chargeable in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
81. The applicant also claimed RUB 567.68 for postal expenses. The Government submitted that the applicant's claim should be rejected because the applicant had failed to substantiate it with any documents.
82. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 16 under this head.
C. Default interest
83. The
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
