Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.10.2009 «Дело Прохорова (Prokhorova) против России» [англ.]

tion to the injured party."

A. Damage

35. The applicant claimed 2,914.49 Russian roubles (RUB) awarded by the judgment of 4 April 2001 (case No. 2-3638/01) in respect of pecuniary damage and 6,200 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
36. The Government noted that no satisfaction should be awarded since there was no violation of the Convention. At the same time in the letter of 26 June 2008 they acknowledged that, as regards the applicant's claim for pecuniary damage in amount RUB 2,914.49, the judgment of 4 April 2001 (case No. 2-3638/01) was not enforced and they were taking steps to enforce it.
37. The Court recalls that in general the most appropriate form of redress in respect of violations found is to put the applicant as far as possible in the position he or she would have been in if the Convention requirements had not been disregarded (see, among many other authorities, Dovguchits v. Russia, No. 2999/03, § 48, 7 June 2007). This principle applies in this application, having regard to the violations found.
38. In the present case the applicant was prevented from receiving money she had a right to receive under the judgment of 4 April 2001 (case No. 2-3638/01).
39. Therefore the Court considers that the Government shall secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the judgment of 4 April 2001 in the case No. 2-3638/01 (see Lesnova v. Russia, No. 37645/04, § 25, 24 January 2008).
40. As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the applicant must have suffered distress and frustration resulting from the authorities' failure to duly enforce the judgments in her favour. However, the amount claimed appears excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 3,900 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

B. Costs and expenses

41. The applicant made no relevant claims. Accordingly, the Court will make no 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 concerning non-enforcement admissible and the complaint concerning supervisory review inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Articles 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of non-enforcement of the final judgments in the applicant's favour;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, shall secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the judgment of 4 April 2001 in the case No. 2-3638/01;
(b) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damages, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,900 (three thousand nine hundred euros), to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(c) 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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 October 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Nina {VAJIC}
President<



> 1 ... 2 3 4 5

	Поделиться:	Tweet