986/93, § 130, ECHR 2000-VII). The Court further recalls that a threat of criminal or disciplinary proceedings invoked, for instance, against an applicant's lawyer concerning the contents of a statement submitted to the Court has previously been found to interfere with the applicant's right of petition (see McShane v. the United Kingdom, No. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May 2002)
36. Turning to the cases at hand, the Court observes, and it is not disputed by the parties, that no criminal or administrative proceedings were opened against the applicants. It appears from the applicants' extremely brief submissions that their only concern was the form of the summonses containing a reference to the binding force of the prosecutor's instructions and a possibility of application of an unspecified administrative sanction. No further details were submitted by them in respect of the complaint. Furthermore, Mrs Sadchikova and Mrs Sedykh submitted no information as regards the respective interviews. It is therefore unclear whether such interviews took place in respect of them, at all. Turning to Mrs Gurova's interview, the Court observes that she was asked about the domestic judgment in her favour and her unsuccessful attempts to obtain its execution. There is nothing in the case materials to suggest that the interview trespassed into verifying the authenticity of her application and whether she wanted to continue it (see, by contrast, {Dulas} v. Turkey, No. 25801/94, § 81, 30 January 2001, and Fedotova v. Russia, No. 73225/01, § 49 - 51, 13 April 2006). The Court further finds no evidence in the submissions that Mrs Gurova was forced to give evidence to the prosecutor (see Tarariyeva v. Russia, No. 4353/03, § 121, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)). In the absence of any additional factual information on the circumstances of these particular cases, the Court is unable to conclude that the interviews, or the manner in which the applicants had been summoned for them, involved any form of illicit and unacceptable pressure put on the applicants in order to dissuade them from pursuing their applications to the Court. The Court concludes that the Government have not breached their obligations under Article 34.
IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
37. 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
1. Pecuniary damage
(a) The parties' submissions
38. Mrs Kazmina claimed RUB 1,392.20 in respect of pecuniary damage. This amount represented her estimate of the interest arising out of the delayed enforcement of the judgment of 5 December 2000, calculated on the basis of the refinancing rate of an unspecified "Bank", apparently the Central Bank of Russia. Mrs Sadchikova, Mrs Sedykh, Mrs Gurova, Mrs Pisareva and Mr Pisarev claimed the interest arising out of the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour. They suggested that the compensation should be calculated on the basis of the refinancing rate of the Central Bank of Russia on the date of their application to the Court (12% in respect of all the applications concerned). Mrs Sedykh (application No. 13574/06) specified that 29.65 euro (EUR), calculated this way, should be awarded to her. The other applicants did not specify the amounts they sought to obtain for pecuniary damage as a result of adjustment of the judgment debts on the basis of the refinancing rate mentioned above.
39. The Government contested the claim by Mrs Kazmina as not substantiated with any evidence. They pointed out that she had not indicated to which bank's rates she ha
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8 ... 9 10
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
