vicious circle where the national courts were pointing at each other and refusing to hear her case in view of the alleged limitations on their judicial powers. The domestic courts virtually left the applicant, through no fault of her own, in a judicial vacuum (see, mutatis mutandis, Marini v. Albania, No. 3738/02, § 122, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts)). In this regard the Court is also mindful of the fact that the Government did not advance any justification for the domestic courts' actions and did not indicate any legitimate aim it could have possibly pursued. The Court, however, is not prepared to substitute the Government on that account (see, for similar reasoning, Dunayev v. Russia, No. 70142/01, § 37, 24 May 2007). It therefore finds that there has been an unjustified infringement of the very essence of the applicant's right to a tribunal.
34. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
35. The Court has examined the other complaints submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within the Court's competence, it finds that they 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
36. 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
37. The applicant claimed 1,515,150 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, representing the cost of the building, the title to which had been ceded by the applicant's husband. She further claimed EUR 1,000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
38. The Government submitted that the applicant's claim for pecuniary damage had no causal link to the alleged restriction on the applicant's right of access to a court. They further argued that the claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage was highly excessive. The Government drew the Court's attention to a number of cases in which violations of the applicants' rights under Article 6 of the Convention had been found. They argued that the amount of compensation in those cases did not exceed EUR 3,000 and asked the Court, if it was to find of a violation in the present case, to apply a similar standard.
39. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, it notes that it has found a violation of the applicant's right of access to a court in the present case. The Court considers that the applicant's suffering and frustration cannot be compensated for by the mere finding of a violation. 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 on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
40. The applicant, without submitting any documents in support, also claimed EUR 800 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
41. The Government stressed that the applicant's claims were unsubstantiated.
42. 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
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
