and also impaired this applicant's right to a court. The Court accordingly concludes that the prolonged failure to enforce the two judgments in S. Panchenko's favour amounted to violations of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
V. 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
38. The applicants claimed in respect of pecuniary damage the sums awarded to them by the judgments of 11 December 2001 given by the Ryazan Garnison Military Court and compensation for inflation losses in 2002 - 2007 (see details in the table appended). They also claimed EUR 7,000 for each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
39. The Government considered that nothing should be awarded while making no specific comment on the calculation of pecuniary damage by the applicants. They considered the claim for non-pecuniary damage to be excessive and unreasonable.
40. The Court recalls that the most appropriate form of redress in respect of the violations found would be to put the applicants as far as possible in the position they would have been if the Convention requirements had not been disregarded (see Piersack v. Belgium (Article 50), judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A No. 85, p. 16, § 12, and, mutatis mutandis, {Gencel} v. Turkey, No. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003). The Court considers that this principle should apply in the present cases (see Dovguchits cited above, § 48).
41. The applicants were prevented from receiving the amounts they had legitimately expected to receive under the binding and enforceable judgments delivered by domestic courts in their favour. Accordingly, the Court awards the applicants the amounts awarded by the judgments of 11 December 2001 of the Ryazan Garnison Military Court (see details in the table appended).
42. The Court further accepts the applicants' argument relating to the loss of value of these awards between 2002 and 2007. As the Government has not submitted any comment in respect of the method used by the applicants for the calculation of these losses, the Court decides to grant the applicants claims in full (see details in the table appended).
43. As regards the delay in enforcement of the judgment of 13 December 2001 in favour of S. Panchenko (see paragraphs 9 and 34 above), the Court notes that while the applicant referred in his observations to insufficient compensation awarded by the domestic court in this respect, he did not specify any separate claim for just satisfaction in relation to this judgment. Nor did the applicant present any such claim in respect of the late enforcement of the judgment of 20 December 2001. Accordingly, the Court makes no award in this respect.
44. The Court also finds that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of the violations found which cannot be compensated by the mere finding of a violation. Having regard to the circumstances of the cases and making its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards to each applicant a sum of EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
45. Each applicant claimed 10,000 RUB (EUR 285) paid to their representative for his legal assistance in the preparation of their applications and observations to the Court. The lawyer's bills were provided in support of this claim.
46. The Government considered that these claims
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
