d 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.
29. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
30. 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
31. The applicants claimed 8,309,351 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of pecuniary damage and RUB 2,830,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
32. The Government argued that these claims were unreasonable and unsubstantiated. The applicants had suffered no loss, because in the end they had been offered a flat bigger than originally awarded, and because in the meantime the State had subsidized their rent.
33. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged, especially since the State had eventually offered them a flat bigger than originally awarded (see Ryabykh v. Russia, No. 52854/99, § 62, ECHR 2003-IX). The Court therefore rejects this claim.
34. On the other hand, the Court accepts that the applicants might have been distressed by the non-enforcement and supervisory review of the binding judgment. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards 4,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
35. The applicants also claimed RUB 214,000 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
36. The Government argued that not all of these expenses had related to the alleged violations, and that the applicants had not specified what work their lawyer had done.
37. 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 considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 500 covering costs under all heads.
C. Default interest
38. 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 non-enforcement and supervisory review admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of supervisory review;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of non-enforcement;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 500 (five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respe
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
