BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF BEZBORODOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 36765/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20
November 2008
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Bezborodov v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Rait Maruste, President,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Anatoly Kovler,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark
Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia
Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 21 October 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 36765/03) against the Russian
Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Aleksandr Anatolyevich
Bezborodov (“the applicant”), on 29 October 2003.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, the former Representative of the
Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
9 July 2007 the Court decided to give notice of the application to
the Government. It also decided to examine the merits of the
application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 §
3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Moscow. He is a military
officer.
A. Background of the case
- At
some point the applicant sued his military unit for wage
arrears. By judgments of 1 June 2000 and 10
August 2000 the Mozdokskiy District Court of the Republic of North
Ossetia (Alaniya) (“the District Court”) awarded him
242,293 Russian Roubles (RUB). This
amount was not paid to him within the statutory time-limit.
B. Judgment of 5 November 2001 and subsequent enforcement
proceedings
- At
some point the applicant brought a claim against the military
unit for inflation losses arising out of protracted enforcement of
the judgments of 1 June 2000 and 10 August
2000.
- On 5 November 2001 the District
Court allowed his claim and ordered military unit no. 3737 to pay him
RUB 122,975.28 of damages resulting from delayed enforcement of two
judgments in his favour.
- It appears that the judgment was
not appealed against and entered into force ten days later.
- On 19 November 2001 the District
Court issued the applicant with a writ of execution in respect of the
judgment.
- On 13 February 2002 the
applicant submitted the writ to the Ministry of Finance.
- By letter of 20 September 2002
the Ministry informed the applicant that the writ of execution had
been forwarded to the Ministry of the Interior.
The judgment remained unenforced, since no budget funds had been
allocated from the federal budget for these purposes until 2004.
- According to the Government, on 29 October 2004 the
amount of RUB 122,975.28 was paid to the
applicant. The Government submitted a copy of the payment order dated
29 October 2004 confirming that the entire sum had been
transferred to the applicant’s account.
- According to the applicant, on 1 November 2004 he
received the amount of RUB 122,900 credited into his bank account. He
submitted a copy of the same payment order of 29 October 2004 (see
paragraph 12 above) confirming transfer of 122,975.28
to his account.
C. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for
inflation losses
- On 14 November 2005 the applicant brought court
proceedings claiming compensation for depreciation of the judgment
debt due to inflation for a period between 14
February 2002, the date when the Ministry of Finance received the
writ of execution, and 29 October 2004, the date when the judgment
had been enforced.
- On 20 December 2005 the District
Court granted the applicant’s claim and awarded him RUB
46,238.68 against his military unit.
- On 17 March 2006 the command of the respondent unit
applied for reopening of the case in view of the newly established
circumstances.
- On 27 March 2006 the District
Court granted the application, annulled the judgment of 20 December
2005 and scheduled a new examination of the case.
- On 18 August 2006 the District
Court examined the applicant’s action, found in his favour and
ordered the military unit to pay him RUB 125,557.76. The respondent
unit appealed.
- On 16 May 2007 the Supreme Court
of the Republic of North Ossetia (Alaniya) quashed the judgment of 18
August 2006 on appeal and remitted the case for a new consideration
by the first instance court.
- On 3 October 2007 the District
Court examined the case afresh and allowed the applicant’s
action. The court found that the military unit was to pay the
applicant RUB 41,528.75 of compensation for inflation losses
resulting from the delayed enforcement of the judgment of 5 November
2001.
- It appears that at some point
the command of the respondent military unit applied for the reopening
of the proceedings due to newly established circumstances.
- On 26 December 2007 the District
Court granted the request and reversed the judgment of 3 October 2007
on account of newly established circumstances.
- On 29 January 2008 the District
Court again examined and granted the applicant’s claim for
upgrading of the judgment debt of 5 November 2001 and made a
pecuniary award in the amount of RUB 40,950 in his favour.
- In letter of 15 March 2008 the
applicant informed the Court that at some point the judgment of 29
January 2008 had been appealed against by one of the parties. A new
hearing had been scheduled for 19 March 2008. No further information
has been provided by the parties. It appears that the proceedings are
still pending.
D. Another set of compensation proceedings
- At
some point the applicant sued the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry
of Interior and the Chief Command of the Interior troops of the
Ministry of Interior for damages resulting from the delayed
enforcement of the judgment of 5 November 2001. On 27 February 2008
the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow rejected his claims. The
court found no evidence that the damage claimed had been caused to
the applicant by the respondent authorities, or that the latter had
unlawfully withheld the applicant’s monetary assets. The
applicant appealed. It appears that the appeal proceedings are still
pending.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- Under
section 9 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 21 July
1997, a bailiff must enforce a judgment in two months.
- Article
208 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers a court to upgrade the
amount of a judgment debt, if a creditor so asks.
- Chapter 59 § 4 of the Civil Code obliges the
State to compensate a person’s non-pecuniary damage caused by a
breach of his property rights. In particular, a
court may hold the tortfeasor liable for non-pecuniary damage caused
to an individual by actions impairing his or her personal
non-property rights or affecting other intangible assets belonging to
him or her (Articles 151 and 1099 § 1 of the Civil Code).
Compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained through an impairment
of an individual’s property rights is only recoverable in cases
provided for by law (Article 1099 § 2 of the Civil Code).
Compensation for non-pecuniary damage is payable irrespective of the
tortfeasor’s fault if damages were caused to an individual’s
life or limb, sustained through unlawful criminal prosecution,
dissemination of untrue information and in other cases provided for
by law (Article 1100 of the Civil Code). Harm
caused in the course of the administration of justice by the courts
shall be compensated in cases where the fault of a judge has been
established by a court judgment that has entered into legal force
(Article 1070 § 2 of the Civil
Code).
- By Ruling no. 1-P of 25 January 2001, the
Constitutional Court found that Article 1070 § 2 of the Civil
Code was compatible with the Constitution in so far as it provided
for special conditions on the State liability for the damage caused
by administration of justice. State liability for the damage caused
by such procedural acts or failures to act, such as a breach of the
reasonable time of court proceedings, could arise even in the absence
of a final criminal conviction of a judge if the fault of the judge
has been established in civil proceedings. The Constitutional Court
emphasised, however, that the constitutional right to compensation by
the State for the damage should not be tied in with the individual
fault of a judge. An individual should be able to obtain compensation
for any damage incurred through a violation by a court of his or her
right to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 of the
Convention. The Constitutional Court held that Parliament should
legislate on the grounds and procedure for compensation by the State
for the damage caused by unlawful acts or failures to act of a court
or a judge and determine territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction
over such claims.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION
OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO.1 TO THE
CONVENTION
- The applicant complained about delayed enforcement of
the judgment of 5 November 2001. The Court will examine this
complaint under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1. As far as relevant, these Articles read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil
rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ...
hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of
his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way
impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the
general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties.”
A. Admissibility
1. The parties’ submissions
31. The
Government argued that the applicant’s complaint was
inadmissible for several reasons.
32. They
submitted with reference to the recent Vilho
Eskelinen case (see Vilho
Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no.
63235/00, §62, 19 April 2007) that the
civil head of Article 6 did not apply to the litigation in the
instant case. The domestic proceedings concerned military service and
the applicant was an active military officer entitled to a number of
specific allowances. The disputes concerning military servicemen are
examined by special military courts. Thus, the military personnel
have a limited access to a court under national law, which is
justified on objective grounds in the
State’s interest.
- They also contested the admissibility of the
application on the ground that the judgment of 5 November 2001 had
been enforced in full and accordingly the applicant was no longer a
victim.
- The Government further argued that the applicant had
not exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaint. The
first remedy to exhaust was a claim for compensation for depreciation
of the judgment debt due to inflation. The Government pointed out
that in certain earlier cases the Court had found that the exhaustion
of this remedy had deprived the applicants of their victim status
(see Nemakina v. Russia (dec.), no. 14217/04, 10 July 2007;
Derkach v. Russia (dec.), no. 3352/05, 3 May 2007; Yakimenko
v. Russia (dec.), no. 23500/04, 15 May 2007; and Sarmina and
Sarmin v. Russia (dec.), no. 58830/00, 22 November 2005). When
domestic courts had upgraded a judgment debt in those cases, they had
closely followed the official rate of inflation and compensated any
loss caused by inflation. In the instant case the applicant had
lodged such claim, although he had only done so on 14 November 2005,
after his application to the Court. By judgments of 20 December 2005
and 18 August 2006 in the proceedings concerning compensation for
inflation losses the domestic courts had recognised the applicant’s
right to obtain compensation for delayed enforcement and made
pecuniary awards. Although those judgments had subsequently been
quashed, the main reason for that had been a necessity to determine
an exact amount to be paid, whereas the applicant’s right to
compensation had been recognised in principle by the domestic courts.
The Government thus asserted that the remedy was effective and
capable of providing redress at the national level. However, the
domestic proceedings in respect of the claim had been pending and no
final judgment had been adopted. Accordingly, the remedy had not been
exhausted. The second remedy suggested by the Government was a claim
for non-pecuniary damage for delayed enforcement of the judgment.
According to the Government, this remedy had proven to be effective
in practice. For example, a family from Tatarstan had received 1,800
euros (EUR) for delayed enforcement of a judgment in their favour
(judgment of the Novo-Savinovskiy District Court of Kazan, no.
2-1962/2006, 23 October 2006).
- The applicant insisted that his complaint was
admissible.
2. The Court’s assessment
- The Court finds for the applicant.
- With regard to the applicability of Article 6, the
Court reiterates that this Article does not apply to cases where
domestic law expressly excludes access to a court for the category of
staff in question, and where this exclusion is justified by the
State’s objective interest (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others
v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 62, ECHR
2007 ...) In the case at hand, however, the applicant did have
access to a court under domestic law. He used this right and sued his
employer. The proceedings concerned, in essence, index-linking of an
unpaid judgment debt. The District Court accepted, examined and
granted the applicant’s claims following the rules of civil
procedure. Nothing suggests that domestic law barred the applicant’s
access to a court. Accordingly, Article 6 is applicable to the
present case (compare with Dovguchits v. Russia, no. 2999/03,
§ 24, 7 June 2007). The Government’s objection ratione
materiae must therefore be dismissed.
- As to the argument of the Government that the judgment
in question had already been enforced and the applicant had
accordingly lost his victim status, the Court considers that the mere
fact that the authorities complied with the judgment after
substantial delays cannot be viewed in this case as automatically
depriving the applicant of his status as a “victim” under
the Convention (see, among others, Petrushko v. Russia,
no. 36494/02, § 16, 24 February 2005).
Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection
that the applicant is no longer a “victim” of the alleged
violation.
- As regards the argument about
non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies, the Court reiterates that it
is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the
Court that the remedy was an effective one, available in theory and
in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was
accessible and capable of providing redress in respect of the
applicant’s complaints and offered reasonable prospects of
success (see Selmouni v. France
[GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud
v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00,
§ 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
- As regards a request for upgrading of the judgment
debt, the Court had indeed noted in certain cases cited by the
Government that the upgrading of judicial awards had effectively
compensated the applicants for inflation losses. The Court held in
those cases that the payment without undue delay of such compensation
together with the acknowledgement of the violations by the
authorities had deprived the applicants of their victim status (see
Derkach, Yakimenko, Nemakhina, cited above). However, these
decisions do not establish a general principle that mere compensation
for inflation losses is sufficient to afford redress required by the
Convention for late enforcement of a judgment. In all aforementioned
cases the Court reached its conclusions in the specific circumstances
where the applicants’ claims for compensation were limited to
pecuniary losses resulting from the inflation or the applicants’
position in the domestic proceedings was considered as an implicit
waiver to claim compensation for further pecuniary or non-pecuniary
damage. The Court considers that the mere
upgrading of judicial awards pursuant to Article 208 of the Code of
Civil Procedure does not suffice to satisfy the Convention
requirement of effectiveness as it would only compensate for possible
inflation losses and not for further damages, either pecuniary or
non-pecuniary.
- Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court
notes that in any event the suggested remedy was used by the
applicant, but has not proved to be effective in the present case.
The applicant lodged an action for upgrading in November 2005. On
four occasions the District Court examined and granted his claims and
made pecuniary awards in his favour, and each time those awards were
quashed pursuant to respondent authority’s requests. No final
judgment was adopted by the domestic courts until at least 28 March
2008, and it appears that the proceedings are pending to date.
Accordingly, it cannot be said that as a result of more than two
years of the proceedings the domestic courts have either recognised
the violation of the applicant’s rights on account of
non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour or granted him adequate
compensation. The Court notes in this respect that a failure to hear
an action for compensation within reasonable time constitutes a
factor which, inter alia, may affect the effectiveness,
adequacy or accessibility of a remedy (see, mutatis mutandis,
Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97,
§ 195, ECHR 2006-...).
- Finally, the Court does not lose sight of the fact
that the judgment of 5 November 2001 itself compensated the
applicant’s losses resulting from non-enforcement of two
earlier domestic judgments. However, this award, in its turn, had
remained without execution until 29 October 2004. The Court observes
that such action had only produced repetitive results, namely a writ
of execution which had not been enforceable for a considerable period
of time, and had not brought the applicant closer to the liquidation
of his debt. In these circumstances the Court is unable to conclude
that the remedy suggested has proved to be effective in practice in
the present case.
- As regards a claim for
non-pecuniary damage, the Court notes
that Russian law does not specifically provide for compensation of
non-pecuniary damage resulting from non-enforcement or late
enforcement of domestic judgments. While accepting the Government’s
view that the possibility of such compensation is not, in principle,
excluded under the existing general provisions of the Civil Code, the
Court is not satisfied that this possibility is sufficiently certain
in practice so as to offer the applicant reasonable prospects of
success as required by the Convention. The
Court notes at the outset that Russian law does not have a special
compensatory remedy for complaints stemming from an excessive length
of enforcement proceedings. Although the Constitutional Court –
already in 2001 – called on the legislature to determine the
procedural rules governing actions for compensation for a violation
of the right to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 of the
Convention (see paragraph 29 above), the state of the Russian law has
not evolved since. The doubts about the
effectiveness of this remedy are corroborated by the Government’s
failure to demonstrate before the Court the existence of sufficiently
established and consistent case-law proving that this remedy is
effective both in theory and in practice. The domestic judgment cited
by the Government as awarding non-pecuniary damage on the basis of
the existing provisions does not allow the Court to depart from its
conclusion. Accordingly, a claim for
non-pecuniary damage cannot be said to constitute
an effective remedy either. The Court
therefore rejects the Government’s argument about the
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
- The
Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Court observes that on 5 November 2001 the applicant obtained a
judgment in his favour which became enforceable ten days later. With
reference to the copy of the pay order dated 29 October 2004 the
Government submitted that on the latter date the judgment had been
enforced in full. The applicant mentioned, without providing further
details, that the award had not been paid to him in its entirety.
- The
Court notes that the applicant did not furnish any evidence proving
that the judgment in his favour had not been fully enforced. At the
same time, he submitted a copy of the pay order of 29 October 2004
confirming the transfer of the entire award to his bank account. It
further appears that in his submissions before the domestic courts in
the proceedings concerning index-linking of the award the applicant
referred to 29 October 2004 as the date of enforcement of the
judgment in his favour (see paragraph 14 above). Having regard to the
documents in its possession, the Court accepts that the judgment of 5
November 2001 was enforced in full on 29 October 2004. It had thus
remained without enforcement for two years, eleven months and
fourteen days.
- With reference to the Inozemtsev case (see
Inozemtsev v Russia
(dec.), no. 874/03, 31 August 2006) the Government argued that
the delay of enforcement had been justified, since at the time of
processing of the applicant’s writ of execution the Ministry of
Interior had been in transition from an old system of administration
of its finances to a new one. During that phase the Ministry had
faced considerable difficulties in managing payments in respect of
over 7,500 writs from all over the country which had lead to certain
delays. The applicant maintained his claims.
- As regards the Government’s argument that the
Ministry of Interior had experienced objective difficulties with the
enforcement of court awards, the Court reiterates that a delay in the
execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances.
However, that delay may not be such as to impair the essence of the
right protected under Article 6 § 1 (see Burdov v.
Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002-III). The
Court notes that, by contrast to the case of Inozemtsev v. Russia
(cited above), in which the domestic judgment had been enforced
within approximately one year, in the present case the award in the
applicant’s favour remained without execution for two years and
eleven months. The Court further recalls that the applicant should
not be prevented from benefiting from the success of the litigation
on the ground of alleged difficulties experienced by the State
enforcement services and the complexity of the budgetary arrangement
(see Lykov v. Russia, no. 18557/06, § 20,
12 July 2007). Finally, the Court
reiterates that it is incumbent on the State to organise its legal
system in such a way that ensures co-ordination between various
enforcement agencies and secures honouring of the State’s
judgment debts in good time (see, insofar as relevant, Reynbakh
v. Russia, no. 23405/03, § 23, 29 September
2005). The Court accordingly finds that
the arguments advanced by the Government do not justify such a delay
in execution of the judgment of 5 November 2001.
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising similar
issues to the ones in the present case (see
Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02,
§ 23 et seq., 24 February 2005; Gorokhov
and Rusyayev v. Russia,
no. 38305/02, § 30 et seq., 17 March 2005).
- Having examined the material
submitted to it, the Court sees no reason for reaching a different
conclusion in the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the
subject, the Court finds that by failing for two years, eleven months
and fourteen days to comply with the enforceable judgment in the
applicant’s favour the domestic authorities impaired the
essence of his right to a court and prevented him from receiving the
money he had reasonably expected to receive.
- There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 §
1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- 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
- The
applicant claimed in respect of pecuniary damage RUB 71,358.83
as statutory interest for the period of
non-enforcement. He submitted a detailed
calculation of his claims which was based on the refinancing rate of
the Central
Bank of Russia. He also claimed EUR 3,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government considered that, should the Court find a violation in this
case, that would in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
They argued in respect of the applicant’s claim for pecuniary
damage that no award should be made by the Court, since the applicant
had not exhausted domestic remedies: his claim for compensation of
inflation losses had been pending before the domestic courts, and no
final judgment had been delivered in the proceedings. Furthermore,
the applicant had failed to lodge an action for non-pecuniary damage
with the domestic courts. Accordingly, he had not exhausted the
domestic remedies in respect of his claim under Article 41. However,
should the Court find it necessary to award damages, the amount of
pecuniary damage should not exceed RUB 41,528.75. The Government
argued that the applicant had claimed the latter amount in the
domestic proceedings, and on 3 October 2007 such claim had been
allowed by the Mozdokskiy District Court, and there would be no
reason to award him a bigger sum. As regards the claims for
non-pecuniary damage, they submitted that these claims were
excessive and unsubstantiated. Finally, the Government noted that the
award made on 5 November 2001 had not constituted an essential asset
for the applicant.
- The
Court reiterates, firstly, that an applicant cannot be required to
exhaust domestic remedies to obtain compensation for his loss since
this would prolong the procedure before the Court in a manner
incompatible with the effective protection of human rights (see
Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, § 80, 24 May
2007 and, mutatis mutandis, Papamichalopoulos and Others v.
Greece (Article 50), judgment of 31 October 1995, Series A
no. 330-B, § 40). Therefore, this argument of the Government
should be dismissed.
- As
regards the Government’s suggestion that the pecuniary damage,
if awarded, should be calculated in accordance with the applicant’s
submissions made at a certain stage of the domestic proceedings, the
Court notes that the Government had not submitted either the
calculation allegedly used by the applicant at that stage of the
proceedings or a copy of the judgment of 3 October 2007 (in any
event, annulled on 26 December 2007 upon the respondent authority’s
request). Nor did they indicate what particular method of calculation
had been used by the applicant at that stage of the domestic
proceedings. The Court further notes that the Government did not
object to the method of calculation of pecuniary damage used by the
applicant in his submissions to the Court and failed
to explain what specific aspect of the applicant’s calculation
had been erroneous.
- The Court further observes that in the present case it
found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of delayed enforcement of the award in
the applicant’s favour. The Court
considers that there is a causal link between the violation found and
the pecuniary damage alleged. Having regard to the materials in its
possession and to the fact that the Government did not raise any
specific objection to the applicant’s method of calculation of
the pecuniary damage, the Court accepts the applicant’s claim
and awards him EUR 2,020 in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax
that may be chargeable on that amount.
- The
Court further considers that the applicant must
have suffered distress and frustration resulting from the State
authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment in his favour. The
Court takes into account the relevant aspects, such as the length of
the enforcement proceedings and the nature of the award, and making
its assessment on an equitable basis, awards the applicant EUR
1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus
any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The applicant did not make any
claim in respect of the costs and expenses incurred before the
domestic courts and before the Court within the time-limits set by
the Court. Accordingly, the Court makes no award under this head.
C. Default interest
- 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
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State, within three months from the date on which the
judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention, shall pay the applicant EUR 2,020 (two thousand and
twenty euros) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 (one
thousand five hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to
be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date
of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts 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 20 November 2008,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Rait Maruste
Registrar President
