Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 28.05.2009 «Дело Елисеев (Yeliseyev) против России» [англ.]

er to pay the fees.
24. 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

25. 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

26. The applicant claimed 37.555 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of pecuniary damage, representing the cost of his car allegedly damaged by the respondent company and repair costs. He further claimed RUB 1.560 and 1 percent of the car's cost in losses for each day he could not use his car. In addition, he claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage, leaving the determination of the sum to the Court.
27. The Government submitted that the claims for compensation for pecuniary damage were unrelated to the violation which had occurred in the applicant's case.
28. 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 considers that the applicant suffered distress, anxiety and frustration because of an unreasonable length of the proceedings in his case. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant 2,400 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

B. Costs and expenses

29. Without indicating the sum or providing documents in support, the applicant also claimed compensation for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
30. The Government stressed that the claims were unsubstantiated.
31. 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 information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses.

C. Default interest

32. 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 the excessive length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
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, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,400 (two thousand and four hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of the settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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



> 1 2 3 4

	Поделиться:	Tweet