Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.01.2009 "Дело "Бурдов (Burdov) против Российской Федерации" (N 2)" [рус., англ.]

lation to the applicants' incomes (see Poznakhirina, cited above, § 35).
154. The Court recalls that it determines the size of awards for non-pecuniary damage taking into account such factors as the applicant's age, personal income, the nature of the domestic court awards, the length of the enforcement proceedings and other relevant aspects (see Plotnikovy, cited above, § 34). The applicant's health is also taken into account, as well as the number of the judgments that failed to be properly and/or timeously enforced. All these factors may affect in various degrees the Court's award in respect of non-pecuniary damage and even lead, exceptionally, to no award at all. At the same time, it is demonstrated rather clearly by the Court's case-law that such awards are, in principle, directly proportionate to the period during which a binding and enforceable judgment remained unenforced.
155. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court recalls that by the judgment of 7 May 2002 it awarded the same applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained on account of enforcement delays ranging between almost one and three years within the Court's jurisdiction and concerning three domestic judgments (see Burdov, cited above, §§ 36 and 47).
156. In the instant case the same applicant suffered from comparable enforcement delays in respect of similar judicial awards under three other domestic judgments. Accordingly, the violations found by the Court would, in principle, call for a just satisfaction award equal or very close to the one decided by the judgment of 7 May 2002. The Court will, in addition, bear in mind that distress and frustration arising from non-enforcement of domestic judgments may be heightened by the existence of a practice incompatible with the Convention since it seriously undermines, as a matter of principle, the citizens' confidence in the judicial system. This factor has however to be carefully balanced against the respondent State's attitude and efforts to combat such a practice with a view to meeting its obligations under the Convention (see paragraph 137 above). The Court must also take account of additional special circumstances in the present case. Indeed, it must be accepted that the applicant's distress and frustration were exacerbated by the authorities' persistent failure to honour their debts under the domestic judgments notwithstanding the first finding of violations by the Court in his case. As a result, the applicant had no choice but again to seek relief through time-consuming international litigation before the Court. In view of this important element, the Court considers that an increased award would be appropriate in respect of non-pecuniary damage in the present case.
157. Having regard to the foregoing and making its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicant EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

B. Costs and expenses

158. The applicant did not claim any compensation for costs and expenses. The Court therefore makes no award under this head.

C. Default interest

159. 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 admissible the complaint concerning the authorities' prolonged failure to comply with binding and enforceable judgments in the applicant's favour and the remainder of the applicant's complaints inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the State's prolonged failure to en



> 1 2 3 ... 59 60 61

	Поделиться:	Tweet