pplication is likewise admissible. However, having once more regard to the conclusions in paragraphs 28 and 35 above, the Court considers that the applicant's complaints raise no separate issue under the Convention and its Protocols (see Radchikov, cited above § 55).
IV. Other alleged violations of the Convention
38. Lastly, the applicant complained that the investigating authorities were slow in bringing charges against him and that the trial judge had been biased in that he had written a letter to his former employer.
39. The Court has examined the remainder of the applicant's complaints as submitted by him. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, it finds that these complaints 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.
V. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
40. 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
41. The applicant claimed 125,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. He claimed that the domestic court refused to reinstate him in his post with reference to the judgment of 22 May 2002 which was in force after the supervisory ruling of 20 September 2002.
42. The Government submitted that the amount claimed was excessive and unsubstantiated.
43. 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 awards the applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
B. Default interest
44. 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 rulings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the 2001 supervisory review proceedings;
3. Holds that there is no need to examine the procedural complaint under Article 6 of the Convention;
4. Holds that there is no need to examine whether the 2002 supervisory review proceedings complied with Article 6 of the Convention;
5. Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention;
6. 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 1,000 (one thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable on the date of 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;
7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 April 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of t
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
