uthorities of an effective domestic remedy in these cases or through ad hoc solutions such as friendly settlements with the applicants or unilateral remedial offers in line with the Convention requirements (see paragraph 127 above).
146. Pending the adoption of domestic remedial measures by the Russian authorities, the Court decides to adjourn adversarial proceedings in all these cases for one year from the date on which the judgment becomes final. This decision is without prejudice to the Court's power at any moment to declare inadmissible any such case or to strike it out of its list following a friendly settlement between the parties or the resolution of the matter by other means in accordance with Articles 37 or 39 of the Convention.
VI. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
147. 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
148. The applicant claimed a global sum of EUR 40,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. He referred to sufferings caused by the State's repeated and persistent failure to comply with the domestic judgments notwithstanding his first successful application to the Court. He supported his claim for pecuniary damage by the authorities' alleged failure to pay him default interest under the Compulsory Social Insurance Act 1998 (see paragraph 118 above).
149. The Government submitted that the applicant had suffered no pecuniary damage and that a finding of a violation would provide adequate just satisfaction for any damage sustained. They referred to certain non-enforcement cases in which the Court had either awarded modest amounts (Plotnikovy v. Russia, No. 43883/02, § 34, 24 February 2005) in respect of non-pecuniary damage or decided that the finding of a violation was sufficient (Poznakhirina v. Russia, No. 25964/02, 24 February 2005; Shapovalova v. Russia, No. 2047/03, 5 October 2006; Shestopalova and Others v. Russia, No. 39866/02, 17 November 2005; and Bobrova v. Russia, No. 24654/03, 17 November 2005).
150. The Court recalls that it has rejected the applicant's complaint about non-payment of default interest under the Compulsory Social Insurance Act 1998 (see paragraph 119 above); it therefore also rejects the applicant's claim for pecuniary damage in this regard.
151. As regards non-pecuniary damage, the Court accepts that the applicant suffered mental distress and frustration on account of the violations found. The Court furthermore considers that the question is ready for decision and may be considered in the present judgment without waiting for the adoption of general measures as decided above (see paragraph 141 above).
152. The Court cannot agree with the Government that a finding of a violation would provide adequate just satisfaction. The Court refers in this respect to a very strong presumption that the authorities' non-compliance or delayed compliance with a binding and enforceable judgment will occasion non-pecuniary damage (see paragraphs 100 and 111 above). It transpires clearly from the great majority of its judgments that such violations of the Convention give rise, in principle, to frustration and distress that cannot be compensated by the mere finding of a violation.
153. Against this background, the cases referred to by the Government appear rather exceptional. Indeed, the Court's position in these cases may be explained by their very specific circumstances, not least by the small size of domestic court awards (less than EUR 100 in most of the cases) and the marginal significance of the awards in re
> 1 2 3 ... 58 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
