e Court notes that the most appropriate form of redress in respect of a violation of Article 6 is to ensure that the applicant as far as possible is put in the position he would have been in had the requirements of Article 6 not been disregarded (see Piersack v. Belgium (Article 50), 26 October 1984, § 12, Series A No. 85, and, mutatis mutandis, {Gencel} v. Turkey, No. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003). The Court finds that this principle also applies in the present case, having regard to the violations found. The applicant was prevented from receiving money she had legitimately expected to receive under the judgment of 25 July 2003. The Court considers that the Government should pay the judgment award made under the judgment of 25 July 2003.
36. The Court further recalls that the adequacy of the compensation would be diminished if it were to be paid without reference to various circumstances liable to reduce its value, such as an extended delay in enforcement (see Gizzatova v. Russia, No. 5124/03, § 28, 13 January 2005, and Metaxas v. Greece, No. 8415/02, § 36, 27 May 2004). Having regard to the materials in its possession and the fact that the Government did not furnish any objection to the applicant's method of calculation of compensation or submit any other official sources for inflation rates in the relevant period, the Court also awards the applicant EUR 5,890 in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
37. The Court further considers that the applicant suffered distress and frustration resulting from the quashing of the final judgment of 25 July 2003. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
38. The applicant also claimed RUB 10,000 for costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
39. The Government considered this sum to be reasonable should the Court find any violations of the applicant's rights as safeguarded under the Convention.
40. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of his 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 EUR 240, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on that amount.
C. Default interest
41. 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 application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the quashing of the judgment of 25 July 2003;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, shall pay the award made in the applicant's favour under the judgment of 25 July 2003, that is, RUB 347,050 (three hundred forty-seven thousand and fifty Russian roubles);
(b) 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, the following amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of the settlement:
(i) EUR 5,890 (five thousand eight hundred and ninety euros) in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
> 1 2 3 ... 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
