Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Bulgakova v. Russia, No. 69524/01, § 31, 18 January 2007, and Pravednaya, cited above, § 38). The Court sees no reason to depart from those findings in the present case and dismisses the Government's objection that the applicant's complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
28. The Court further observes that the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
(b) Merits
29. The Government claimed that there was no violation of the applicant's property rights because she had not had any "possessions". Nor could she have had any "legal expectations" to benefit from the judgment, since it had been delivered as a result of an evident judicial error.
30. The Court observes that the existence of a debt confirmed by a binding and enforceable judgment furnishes the judgment beneficiary with a "legitimate expectation" that the debt will be paid and constitutes a beneficiary's "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The quashing of such a judgment amounts to an interference with his or her right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see, among other authorities, {Brumarescu}, cited above, § 74, and Androsov v. Russia, No. 63973/00, § 69, 6 October 2005).
31. The Court observes that the proceedings concerned compensation for a daily allowance in respect of the applicant's military service abroad and compensation for legal costs. A substantial amount was found by a domestic court to be payable by the military unit. The quashing of that enforceable judgment frustrated the applicant's reliance on a binding judicial decision and deprived her of an opportunity to receive the money she had legitimately expected to receive. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the quashing of the judgment of 25 July 2003 by way of supervisory review placed an excessive burden on the applicant and was therefore incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. There has therefore been a violation of that Article.
II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
32. 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. Damages
33. The applicant claimed 347,050.70 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of pecuniary damage, referring to the unpaid judgment debt, and RUB 244,046.05, relating to inflation losses accrued during the period of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 25 July 2003. The applicant further claimed 7,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
34. The Government submitted firstly that no award should be made as the judgment of 25 July 2003 was lawfully quashed. They further noted that the applicant did not apply to a national court with a claim for recalculation of the sum due to inflation. They maintained that in her calculation the applicant did not refer to any official sources in respect of rates of inflation from 2003 - 2007. This part of her claim should thus be dismissed. As regards the claim in respect of non-pecuniary damages, the Government considered that the applicant's claim was wholly excessive and unreasonable.
35. The Court observes that in the present case it has found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that the award in the applicant's favour was not paid to her as a result of the quashing of the final judgment by way of supervisory review. Th
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 14
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
