applied in practice, quoting four specific examples of domestic case-law. The Court notes that the same examples have been quoted by the Government in other similar cases and confirms its view that they appear as exceptional and isolated instances rather than evidence of established and consistent case-law. They cannot therefore alter the Court's earlier conclusion that the remedy in issue is not effective in both theory and practice.
115. Moreover, the Court notes that even in such exceptional cases of application of Chapter 59, the level of the compensation awarded for non-pecuniary damage was at times unreasonably low in comparison with the awards made by the Court in similar non-enforcement cases. For instance, in the case of Butko quoted by the Government, the plaintiff received RUB 2,000 (EUR 55) in respect of non-pecuniary damage (decision of 3 August 2004). The same amount was awarded under this head to V. Mukhlynova in the case of Akuginova and others also mentioned by the Government (decision of 22 January 2006). The Court further recalls that it has already found in two other cases that the amounts awarded to the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage incurred through belated enforcement of judgments were manifestly unreasonable in the light of the Court's case-law (see Wasserman, cited above, § 56, and Gayvoronskiy v. Russia, No. 13519/02, § 39, 25 March 2008). The compensation was, in addition, awarded in excessively lengthy proceedings in the former case and was itself paid with considerable delay in the latter.
116. Having regard to the aforementioned shortcomings, the Court considers that the remedy provided for by Chapter 59 of the Civil Code cannot be considered as effective both in theory and in practice as required by Article 13 of the Convention.
(c) Conclusion
117. The Court concludes that there was no effective domestic remedy, either preventive or compensatory, that allows for adequate and sufficient redress in the event of violations of the Convention on account of prolonged non-enforcement of judicial decisions delivered against the State or its entities. There is accordingly a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
III. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention
118. Relying on Article 14 of the Convention, the applicant complained of discrimination on account on the authorities' alleged failure to apply the Compulsory Social Insurance Act 1998 (No. 125-ФЗ) to the liquidators of the Chernobyl disaster on the same terms as to other professional groups. He submitted in particular that he had not received default interest as provided for by this Act. The Government argued that this question concerned the application of domestic law and was solely within the competence of the domestic courts.
119. The Court notes that the Shakhty Town Court's judgment of 4 December 2003 granted the applicant's claim under the aforementioned Act (see paragraph 14 above). In any event, the applicant's complaint about alleged discrimination, should first have been submitted to the domestic courts under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant failed to demonstrate that he had exhausted domestic remedies in this regard. Nor did he substantiate his allegation before the Court. The Court therefore finds no appearance of a violation of Article 14 and rejects this complaint.
IV. Alleged shortfall in payment of just satisfaction
due under the court's Judgment of 7 May 2002
120. The applicant also complained about the authorities' failure to pay him the full amount of just satisfaction awarded by the Court's judgment of 7 May 2002. According to his calculation, the sum of EUR 3,000 awarded was equivalent at the date of payment to RUB 94,981.50, while he only received RUB 92,724.60. He accordingly claimed a shortfall of
> 1 2 3 ... 52 53 54 ... 59 60 61
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
