Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 13.01.2009 «Дело Нина Казмина и другие (Nina Kazmina and others) против России» [англ.]

tted postal receipts in support of her claim. The Government disagreed, claiming that the applicant only substantiated her expenses in the amount of RUB 231.
47. Regard being had to the information in its possession and the criteria cited above, the Court allows the applicant's claim and awards Mrs Kazmina EUR 12 in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

2. Claims by Mrs Sadchikova, Mrs Sedykh, Mrs Gurova and
Mrs and Mr Pisarevy (Nos. 13570/06, 13574/06, 13576/06
and 13579/06)

48. In each of the above cases the applicants claimed EUR 44 in respect of lawyer's fees and postal expenses. They did not submit copies of the respective fee agreements to that effect, but argued, with reference to the case of Timishev v. Russia (No. 3) (No. 18465/05, § 36, 14 June 2007) that in each case the applicants and their representative spent about one day preparing the materials for the Strasbourg proceedings, and the amount claimed represented the average value of a lawyer's working day.
49. The Government did not comment on the claims by Mrs Sedykh (case No. 13574/06). They contested the claims raised by the other applicants as unsubstantiated.
50. Regard being had to the information in its possession, the Court finds it appropriate to award EUR 44 for costs and expenses in respect of each of the above four applications, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

C. Default interest

51. 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. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares in respect of all applications the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning non-enforcement of judgments in the applicants' favour admissible;
3. Holds in respect of all applications that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in all cases on account of delayed enforcement of the judgments in the applicants' favour;
4. Holds, in respect of the applications Nos. 13570/06, 13574/06 and 13576/06, that the respondent State had not failed in its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention;
5. Holds
(a) in respect of the application No. 13570/06, that the respondent State, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, is to secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the judgment of 16 February 2001 by the Levoberezhnyy District Court of Voronezh in favour of Mrs G. Sadchikova;
(b) in respect of all applications, that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following sums, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of the settlement:
(i) in respect of pecuniary damage:
EUR 25 (twenty five euros) to N. Kazmina;
EUR 35 (thirty five euros) to G. Sadchikova;
EUR 29 (twenty nine euros) to L. Sedykh;
EUR 54 (fifty four euros) to A. Gurova;
EUR 27 (twenty seven euros) to A. Pisareva;
EUR 25 (twenty five euros) to D. Pisarev;
(ii) in respect of non-pecuniary damage:
EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to N. Kazmina;
EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to G. Sadchikova;
EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to L. Sedykh;
EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to A. Gurova;
EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to A. Pisareva;
EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to D. Pisarev;



> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 10

	Поделиться:	Tweet