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

e a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

A. Admissibility

121. The Court notes that this complaint in respect of non-enforcement of the judgment of 18 November 1997 is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
122. As to the rest of the complaints under this Article, they should be declared inadmissible.

B. Merits

123. The Court reiterates that it earlier concluded that there was no effective domestic remedy in Russia, either preventive or compensatory, that allows for adequate and sufficient redress in the event of violations of the Convention on account of prolonged non-enforcement of judicial decisions delivered against the State or its entities (see Burdov v. Russia (No. 2), No. 33509/04, § 117, 15 January 2009).
124. The present case contains no element that would alter the above conclusion. Indeed, the applicant was denied redress for non-enforcement of the judgments in his favour at the domestic level (see paras. 37 - 41 above).
125. There was accordingly a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.

V. Other alleged violations of the Convention

126. The applicant also lodged several other complaints concerning the above proceedings, referring to Articles 6, 10, 13, 14 of the Convention and to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
127. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court 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 is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.

VI. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

128. 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

129. The applicant claimed 72,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
130. The Government contested this claim.
131. As to pecuniary damage, there should be no award as there was no relevant claim made by the applicant.
132. As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the applicant must have suffered distress and frustration resulting from the authorities' failure to enforce the judgment of 18 November 1997 and from the quashing of the final and binding judgment of 10 December 2002, as upheld on 7 May 2003. However, the amount claimed appears excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

B. Costs and expenses

133. The applicant made no claims under this head. Accordingly, the Court will make no award under this head.

C. Default interest

134. 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 complaints concerning the supervisory review proceedings, non-enforcement and length of proceedings admissible and the remainder of the applica



> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11

	Поделиться:	Tweet