company and its representatives of the scheduled hearings. For that reason, an aggregate delay of approximately two years and six months is to be attributed to the respondent State.
43. The Court further observes that the domestic court failed to take procedural measures in order to ensure that the defendants were present at the hearings, despite the fact that such measures were twice taken with respect to the other party to the dispute.
4. Conclusion
44. In the light of the criteria laid down in its case-law, and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the reasonable time requirement. It finds no reason to distinguish between the present case and that of Kesyan v. Russia (cited above).
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
45. 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
46. The applicant company claimed 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of a violation of its right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.
47. The Government submitted that the claim was excessive and unreasonable and if the Court were to find a violation of the Convention, this would in itself be sufficient just satisfaction.
48. The Court considers that the applicant company must have sustained non-pecuniary damage, which would not be adequately compensated by the finding of a violation alone. The Court considers that it should award the full sum claimed.
B. Costs and expenses
49. The applicant company did not claim reimbursement of its 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
50. 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 application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant company, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable on 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 December 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Nina {VAJIC}
President
{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
