shing the final judgment of 10 March 1999 that triggered the start of the six-month time-limit for lodging this part of the application to the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Sardin v. Russia (dec.), No. 69582/01, ECHR 2004-II). The Court further notes that the quashing of a final judgment is an instantaneous act, which does not create a continuing situation, even if it entails a re-opening of the proceedings as in the instant case (see Sitokhova v. Russia (dec.), No. 55609/00, 2 September 2004). In the present case the final judgment of 25 October 2004 in the part which had allegedly not been enforced was quashed by the Presidium of Pskov Regional Court on 12 March 2004, and ceased to be binding and enforceable. There is nothing in the present case to suggest that the applicant had not been aware of the judgment by 5 August 2004, the date of the examination of the Commissariat's extraordinary appeal against the amended judgment at the Pskov Town Court, at latest. However, it was not until 7 December 2005, more than six months after the decision had been quashed, that the applicant complained to the Court that the authorities had failed to enforce the judgment in the part providing for index-linking of the award.
27. It follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
28. 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
29. The applicant claimed 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He did not make claims in respect of pecuniary damage. The Government submitted that the applicant's claim for non-pecuniary damage was not substantiated and that in any event the award should be in line with the Court's practice in similar cases.
30. Having regard to the nature of the breach in this case, making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
B. Costs and expenses
31. The applicant claimed 318 Russian roubles (RUB) in postal expenses and EUR 300 for representation of his own case before the Court.
32. The Government argued that the applicant had substantiated with the postal receipts the expenses in the amount of RUB 309 only. They further contested the amount claimed for self-representation of the case by the applicant on the ground that the said amount of EUR 300 had not been actually paid by the applicant.
33. 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 were reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 8 plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, and to reject the remainder of the applicant's claims as regards costs and expenses as unsubstantiated.
C. Default interest
34. 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 concerning quashing of the judgment in the applicant's favour on supe
> 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
