ant to the judgment of 22 January 2004, RUB 12,338.92 compensation for depreciation of that sum as a result of inflation during the period from January 2005 to December 2008 and RUB 37,269.45 unpaid pension for the period between 1 January 2004 and 31 July 2005. He further claimed 5,400 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
38. The Government submitted that the applicant was not entitled to receive the pecuniary damage claimed, since the judgment in his favour was quashed in accordance with the domestic law. They argued that he had not produced any documents in support of his claim for non-pecuniary damage. They submitted that the finding of a violation would in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
39. 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 applicant's title to the money confirmed by the final judgment was reversed as a result of the quashing of the final judgment by way of the supervisory review. The 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), judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A No. 85, p. 16, § 12, and, mutatis mutandis, {Gencel} v. Turkey, No. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003). The Court finds that in the present case this principle applies as well, having regard to the violations found. It observes that the applicant had to repay the money which he legitimately considered his property under the judgment of 12 May 2003. The Court accepts the applicant's claim in this part and awards him the sum of RUB 39,171.16 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
40. 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 (see, mutatis mutandis, Gizzatova v. Russia, No. 5124/03, § 28, 13 January 2005). The Court accepts the applicant's argument relating to the loss of value of the judgment debt and notes that the applicant submitted detailed calculations based on the consumer price index in the reference period. Taking into account that the Government has not submitted any comment in respect of the method used by the applicant for the calculation of the inflation losses, the Court also awards the applicant EUR 341, plus any tax that may be chargeable, and dismisses the remainder of his claim for just satisfaction.
41. The Court further reiterates that there is no requirement that an applicant furnish any proof of the non-pecuniary damage he or she sustained (see Gridin v. Russia, No. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006). It considers that the applicant suffered distress and frustration resulting from the quashing of the judgment of 12 May 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 from this amount, and dismisses the remainder of his claim in respect of damages.
B. Costs and expenses
42. The applicant claimed RUB 12,000 for the costs and expenses, of this sum RUB 7,000 representing legal costs and RUB 5,000 the cost of the translation of the applicant's observations in French. The Government submitted that no award should be made under this head since the applicant had failed to submit any documentary evidence in support of his claim.
43. The Court notes that the applicant did not submit any receipts or other vouchers confirming that the expenses had been actually incurred. Accordingly, the Court does not make any award under this head.
C. Default interest
44. The Court considers it
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
