Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.04.2010 «Дело Царева (Tsareva) против России» [англ.]

ly.

V. 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 applicant claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) of pecuniary damage caused by the delayed enforcement of the judgments in her favour and EUR 300,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested the claims as manifestly unreasonable and excessive.
40. As regards the claims for pecuniary damage, the Court considers that there is no causal link between the amount claimed and the violation found and therefore rejects her claims under this head. At the same time, the Court considers that the applicant suffered distress and frustration because of the supervisory review of the judgment. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, and dismisses the remainder of her claims for just satisfaction.

B. Costs and expenses

41. The applicant did not claim costs or expenses and there is accordingly no call to make an award under this head.

C. Default interest

42. 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 added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Declares the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the non-enforcement and the quashing of the judgment of 28 November 2001 on supervisory review admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the quashing of the judgment in the applicant's favour by way of the supervisory review;
3. Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment of 28 November 2001;
4. Decides
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 April 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Christos ROZAKIS
President

{Andre} WAMPACH
Deputy Registrar






> 1 2 ... 3 4 5

	Поделиться:	Tweet