Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.01.2009 «Дело Журавлев (Zhuravlev) против России» [англ.]

he provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 (see Panchenko v. Russia (dec.), No. 45100/98, 10 October 2000).
18. Insofar as these complaints relate to the amount of compensation, the Court notes that the conviction was quashed in July 1988 and March 1998, i.e. before the entry of Protocol No. 7 into force in respect of Russia on 1 August 1998. It follows that these complaints are also incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 (see, a contrario, Matveyev v. Russia, No. 26601/02, § 38, 3 July 2008).

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

19. 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

20. The applicant claimed non-pecuniary damages in the amount to be determined by the Court.
21. The Government argued that no damages should have been awarded, since the applicant's rights had been redressed inside Russia.
22. The Court accepts that the applicant must have been distressed by the delayed enforcement of the judgment. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards 1,800 euros under this head.

B. Costs and expenses

23. The applicant made no claim for the costs and expenses, and hence the Court makes no award under this head.

C. Default interest

24. 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 complaint concerning non-enforcement of a binding judgment admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
3. Holds
(a) 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, EUR 1,800 (one thousand eight hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 January 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Christos ROZAKIS
President

{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar






> 1 2 3

	Поделиться:	Tweet