British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
FALIMONOV v. RUSSIA - 11549/02 [2008] ECHR 219 (25 March 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/219.html
Cite as:
[2008] ECHR 219
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF FALIMONOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 11549/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25
March 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 Falimonov v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Elisabet
Fura-Sandström,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Alvina
Gyulumyan,
Luis
López Guerra,
judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 4 March 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 11549/02) 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 Nikolay Semenovich
Falimonov (“the applicant”), on 6 August 2001.
The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially
represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently
Mrs V. Milinchuk.
The
applicant complained, in particular, about the allegedly excessive
length of civil proceedings.
On
12 September 2006 the Court decided to communicate the complaint
concerning the allegedly excessive length of proceedings to the
Government. It also decided, of its own motion, to put a question
about the delay in enforcement of two judgments in the applicant’s
favour. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at
the same time as its admissibility.
The Government objected to the joint examination of the
admissibility and merits of the application. Having examined the
Government’s objection, the Court dismissed it.
THE FACTS
The
applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Voronezh.
A. Proceedings concerning a road accident
1. First examination of the case
On
24 May 1998 the applicant’s wife was injured in a road
accident. She is incapacitated and the applicant is her guardian.
On 13 October 1998 the Kominternovskiy District Court
of Voronezh convicted the driver of reckless driving and infliction
of serious bodily injuries. The court found that the applicant was
entitled to compensation.
On
27 October 1998 the applicant sued the driver on his own behalf and
on behalf of his wife for compensation in respect of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage.
On
19 March 1999 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh
disallowed his claims because he had not paid the court fee and had
not submitted documents showing that he could act on behalf of his
wife.
On
an unspecified date the applicant resubmitted his claims.
On
22 June 1999 the Kominternovskiy District Court for a second time
disallowed his claims because the applicant had not paid the court
fee and had not submitted supporting documents.
On
13 August 1999 the applicant for a third time resubmitted his claims.
On
27 September 1999 the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court
decided that the applicant should be exempted from the court fee.
On
28 September 1999 the Kominternovskiy District Court accepted the
applicant’s claims and scheduled the first hearing for 18
January 2000.
On
18 January 2000 the court adjourned the hearing until 6 April 2000,
following the applicant’s request that his case be examined
with the participation of lay judges.
The
hearing of 6 April 2000 was adjourned because counsel for the
respondent did not appear.
On
13 April 2000 the hearing did not take place because the
representative of the guardianship and wardship authority who had
been invited to give an expert opinion on the merits of the case
failed to appear.
On
3 May 2000 the court again adjourned the hearing.
On
15 September 2000 the court held a hearing.
On
18 September 2000 the Kominternovskiy District Court delivered its
judgment, awarded the applicant 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for
non-pecuniary damage, and severed the claim for pecuniary damage. The
applicant did not appeal. The judgment became enforceable on
28 September 2000.
2. Supervisory review and second examination of the case
On
an unspecified date the applicant lodged an application for
supervisory review of the judgment of 18 September 2000.
On 7 May 2001 the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional
Court granted the applicant’s request for supervisory review,
quashed the judgment on the ground that the District Court had
omitted to examine the claim for pecuniary damage, and remitted the
case for a fresh examination to the District Court.
The
Kominternovskiy District Court scheduled the first hearing for
27 July 2001.
The
hearings of 27 July, 10 September, and 15 November 2001, 10 and
23 April, 20 and 31 May 2002 were adjourned because counsel for the
respondent or the representative of the guardianship and wardship
authority failed to appear, or because the parties asked for an
adjournment for the preparation of additional evidence or obtaining
the attendance of additional witnesses.
On
7 June 2002 the Kominternovskiy District Court held a hearing and
delivered judgment. It awarded the applicant RUB 24,059 in
respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
On
23 June 2002 the Voronezh Regional Court quashed the judgment on
appeal and remitted the case.
The
Kominternovskiy District Court adjourned the hearings on
23 September, 11 October and 15 November 2002 because the
respondent or his counsel did not appear.
On
22 November 2002 the Kominternovskiy District Court awarded the
applicant RUB 32,048 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage.
On
4 February 2003 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the judgment on
appeal. The judgment became enforceable.
3. Supervisory review and third examination of the case
On
31 March 2003 the applicant requested supervisory review of the
judgments of 22 November 2002 and 4 November 2003.
On 9 July 2003 the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional
Court granted the applicant’s request, quashed the judgments on
the ground that the District Court had omitted to examine a part of
the applicant’s claim and remitted the case for a fresh
examination to the District Court.
The first hearing was scheduled for 27 October 2003.
On 27 October, 19 November, and 11 December 2003 the
hearings were adjourned at the request of the prosecutor who
participated in the proceedings.
On
9 January 2004 the Kominternovskiy District Court awarded the
applicant RUB 37,845.44 in respect of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage.
On
25 March 2004 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the judgment on
appeal.
B. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s pension
1. First set of proceedings
On
17 May 2001 the Kominternovskiy District Court ordered that the local
welfare office (Комитет
социальной
защиты
населения
Коминтерновского
района
г. Воронежа)
recalculate the applicant’s pension and pay him RUB 15,804.52
in pension arrears. The judgment became enforceable on 28 May 2001.
The
applicant submitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs, who opened
enforcement proceedings.
On
17 December 2003 the applicant received the amount due.
The
applicant sued the local welfare office for compensation in respect
of the pecuniary damage caused by the delay in enforcement of the
judgment of 17 May 2001.
On
7 April 2005 the Kominternovskiy District Court acknowledged that the
delay in enforcement had violated the applicant’s rights and
awarded him RUB 5,913.05 against the local welfare office in respect
of inflation losses sustained through belated enforcement of the
judgment of 17 May 2001.
On
an unspecified date the amount awarded was paid to the applicant.
2. Second set of proceedings
On
3 June 2004 the Kominternovskiy District Court increased the
applicant’s pension to RUB 6,100.14 and awarded him RUB
54,495.94 in pension arrears against the local welfare office. The
judgment became enforceable on 21 June 2004.
On
19 August 2004 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the
bailiffs, who opened enforcement proceedings.
On
15 December 2004 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement
proceedings because the debtor had no available funds.
The
applicant received the award on 17 June 2005.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF AN EXCESSIVE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention that the proceedings concerning the road accident had
been too long. Article 6 reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The
Court notes that the proceedings began on 27 October 1998 when the
applicant lodged his civil action, and ended on 25 March 2004 when
the Voronezh Regional Court gave the final judgment in the case. The
periods from 28 September 2000 to 7 May 2001 and from 4 February
to 9 July 2003, when no proceedings were pending, should be
deducted from the overall duration of the proceedings (compare Markin
v. Russia (dec.), no. 59502/00, 16 September 2004). The
proceedings therefore lasted slightly more than four years and four
months.
A. Admissibility
The
Government submitted that the applicant had not complained about the
excessive length of the proceedings to the judicial qualifications
board or to the higher judicial authorities. He had not therefore
exhausted domestic remedies.
The
Court observes that it has already found that an application to the
higher judicial authorities or to the judicial qualifications board
is not an effective remedy against the excessive length of the
proceedings (see Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, §§
61 and 62, 29 January 2004). It therefore dismisses the Government’s
objection.
The Court notes that this complaint 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
Government argued that the applicant’s case had been complex.
It had been examined four times on the merits, the hearings had been
scheduled at regular intervals and had been adjourned in accordance
with the Code of Civil Procedure. The delays had been caused by the
conduct of the parties and had not been attributable to the
authorities.
The
applicant maintained his claims.
The
Court recalls that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
coming within the scope of Article 6 § 1 must be assessed in
each case according to the particular circumstances. The Court has to
have regard, inter alia, to the complexity of the factual or
legal issues raised by the case, to the conduct of the applicant and
the competent authorities and to what was at stake for the former
(see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43,
ECHR 2000-VII). In addition, only delays attributable to the State
may justify a finding of a failure to comply with the “reasonable
time” requirement (see Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark,
no. 49017/99, § 44, 19 June 2003).
The
case concerned payment of compensation to the victim of a road
accident. Only two parties were involved in the proceedings. As the
driver’s responsibility and the applicant’s entitlement
to compensation had already been established in the previous criminal
proceedings (see paragraph 8 above), the courts were only called upon
to calculate the amount of compensation on the basis of the documents
submitted by the applicant. Accordingly, the Court considers that the
case was not complex.
As
to the applicant’s conduct, the Court notes that a certain
delay at the initial stage of the proceedings was caused by the
applicant’s failure to submit documents and to pay the court
fee. He is therefore responsible for the delay from 19 March 1999,
when the District Court pointed out those defects to him, to 13
August 1999 when he remedied the defects and re-submitted his claim.
It does not appear that he contributed to the prolongation of the
proceedings at the later stages. Although two hearings were adjourned
following his requests that the case be examined with the
participation of lay judges and that additional witnesses be examined
by the court, the applicant cannot be blamed for taking full
advantage of the resources afforded by national law in the defence of
his interests (see, among others, Sokolov v. Russia, no.
3734/02, § 38, 22 September 2005).
The
Court further observes that substantial periods of inactivity, for
which the Government have not submitted any satisfactory explanation,
are attributable to the domestic authorities. For example, the
Government failed to provide any justification for the delay from 27
October 1998, when the applicant lodged his statement of claim, to 19
March 1999 when the court returned it to the applicant for
corrections on formal grounds. Further delays in the proceedings were
due to infrequent hearings scheduled with significant intervals of
sometimes several months. The Government did not explain why no
hearings had been scheduled between 28 September 1999 and 18 January
2000, 3 May and 15 September 2000, 27 July and 10 September
2001, 15 November 2001 and 10 April 2002, 23 June and
23 September 2002, or 9 July and 27 October 2003.
Furthermore, the Court does not share the Government’s
view that the repeated quashing of lower courts’ judgments by
the supervisory-review instance attested to the complexity of the
case. It observes that one judgment was set aside because of the
first-instance court’s failure to examine some of the
applicant’s claims; the Presidium of the Regional Court
identified procedural defects that rendered the judgment unlawful and
instructed the lower court to remedy these breaches during a new
examination (see paragraph 23 above). However, it appears that the
first instance court failed to implement these instructions and a
subsequent judgment was set aside because of the same procedural
defects that had been previously identified (see paragraph 32 above).
The resulting delay of more than two years is entirely attributable
to the conduct of the domestic authorities (compare Uglanova v.
Russia, no. 3852/02, § 34, 21 September 2006). The
Court reiterates in this connection that in principle the involvement
of numerous instances does not absolve the judicial authorities from
complying with the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 § 1
(see Litoselitis v. Greece,
no 62771/00, § 32, 5 February
2004). Moreover, with regard to the repeated
quashing of the lower courts’ decisions,
the Court recalls that since the remittal of cases for re-examination
is usually ordered as a result of errors committed by lower
authorities, the repetition of such orders within one set of
proceedings discloses a deficiency in the operation of the legal
system (see, mutatis mutandis, Wierciszewska v. Poland,
no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003).
Finally, the Court reiterates that the dispute in the
present case concerned compensation for health damage. The Court is
of the opinion that the nature of the dispute called for particular
diligence on the part of the domestic courts (compare Marchenko v.
Russia, no. 29510/04, § 40, 5 October
2006).
In
the light of above considerations, the Court holds that the
applicant’s case was not heard within a “reasonable
time”. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 §
1 of the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF
NON-ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS
The
Court decided, of its own motion, to examine whether the delay in
enforcement of the judgments of 17 May 2001 and 3 June 2004 violated
the applicant’s right of access to a court enshrined in Article
6 of the Convention and his right to peaceful enjoyment of
possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant
part of Article 6 § 1 was cited above. The relevant part of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 reads as follows:
“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...”
A. Admissibility
1. The Government’s allegation of an abuse of the
right of application
The
Government submitted that the judgments of 17 May 2001 and 3 June
2004 had been enforced before the case had been communicated. The
applicant had not informed the Court about that fact, which had
amounted to a breach of Rule 47 § 6 of the Rules of Court.
The failure to inform the Court about a circumstance relevant to the
application constituted an abuse of the right of application within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3.
The Court reiterates that according to Rule 47 §
6 of the Rules of Court applicants shall keep the Court informed of
all circumstances relevant to the application. It further recalls
that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 §
3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based
on untrue facts. Incomplete and therefore misleading information may
also amount to abuse of the right of application, especially if the
information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient
explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information
(see Hadrabová v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no.
42165/02, 25 September 2007, with further references).
The
applicant in the present case did not complain about non-enforcement
in his application form. He was not therefore under an obligation to
inform the Court about the progress of the enforcement proceedings.
After the non-enforcement issue had been communicated by the Court of
its own motion, the applicant informed the Court that the judgments
had been enforced and submitted a copy of the judgment of 7 April
2005 awarding him compensation for the delay in enforcement. In view
of the above, the Court does not consider that the applicant’s
conduct amounted to an abuse of the right of petition. Accordingly,
the Government’s objection is dismissed.
2. The Government’s request to strike the
application out
Referring
to the Court’s decision in the case of Aleksentseva and
Others v. Russia (nos. 75025/01 et seq., 4 September 2003),
the Government invited the Court to strike the application out of its
list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention on
account of the applicant’s refusal to accept a friendly
settlement.
The
Court observes that it has already examined the same argument by the
Russian Government and rejected it (see Silchenko v. Russia,
no. 32786/03, §§ 33-37, 28 September 2006; Kazartsev
v. Russia, no. 26410/02, §§ 11-15, 2 November 2006,
etc.). The Court does not find any reason to depart from that
approach in the present case. In any event, the Court decided to
restore the case of Aleksentseva and Others v. Russia to its
list of cases because the Government had failed to fulfil their
undertaking to pay compensation to the applicants (see Aleksentseva
and Others (dec.) nos. 75025/01 et seq., 23 March 2006). The
Court therefore dismisses the Government’s request to strike
the application out under Article 37 of the Convention.
3. The Government’s objection as to the
applicant’s victim status
The
Government further argued that the applicant had received
compensation in respect of the pecuniary damage sustained as a result
of the belated enforcement of the judgment of 17 May 2001. He could
also have applied for compensation in respect of the non-pecuniary
damage, but had not done so. Therefore, he can no longer claim to be
a victim.
The
Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the
applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status
as a “victim” unless the national authorities have
acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded
redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, for example, Amuur
v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and
Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36, and Dalban v. Romania
[GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI). The Court observes that
the judgment of 17 May 2001 was enforced in full on 17 December 2003.
Subsequently, the applicant sued the debtor for compensation in
respect of pecuniary damage caused by the delay in enforcement of
that judgment. By the judgment of 7 April 2005, the courts granted
his claims, acknowledging that the delay in enforcement had violated
his rights and ordering the debtor to pay him compensation in respect
of pecuniary damage. The applicant did not allege that there had been
any delays in the payment of the compensation awarded. Nor did he
claim compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court is
satisfied that the domestic authorities acknowledged the breach of
the Convention and paid compensation to the applicant amounting to
redress. It therefore concludes that the applicant can no longer
claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article 34 of the
Convention, of the belated enforcement of the judgment of 17 May
2001. This complaint is therefore incompatible ratione personae
with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article
35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article
35 § 4.
4. Conclusion
As regards the delay in enforcement of the judgment of
3 June 2004, the Court notes that this complaint 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
applicant complained that the judgment of 3 June 2004 had been
enforced after a substantial delay.
The
Government argued that the applicant had not submitted the writ of
execution to the Ministry of Finance. Therefore, the delay in
enforcement had been attributable to him.
The
Court notes that on 3 June 2004 the applicant obtained a judgment in
his favour against the local welfare office. However, it remained
unenforced until 17 June 2005, that is for more than a year.
The
applicant was awarded pension arrears. From the materials of the case
it appears that the pension was the applicant’s main source of
income. It follows that the domestic authorities should have treated
the applicant’s case with special diligence (compare Gorokhov
and Rusyayev v. Russia, no. 38305/02, § 34, 17
March 2005).
The
Government claimed that the delay in enforcement had been caused by
the applicant’s failure to submit by the applicant himself the
writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance. However, the fact that
the judgment debt was ultimately paid to the applicant demonstrates
that submission of the writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance
was not a necessary element of the enforcement proceedings. Therefore
the Court is not persuaded that the delay was attributable to the
applicant.
The Court further observes that the applicant promptly
submitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs’ service which
was, at the relevant time, competent to institute enforcement
proceedings against the State. It therefore finds that the applicant
took reasonable steps to obtain execution of the judgment in his
favour. In any event, the Court reiterates that a person who has
obtained an enforceable judgment against the State as a result of
successful litigation cannot be required to resort to enforcement
proceedings in order to have it executed (see Koltsov v. Russia,
no. 41304/02, § 16, 24 February 2005; Petrushko v.
Russia, no. 36494/02, § 18, 24 February 2005; and
Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May
2004). The State authorities were aware of the applicant’s
claims, and, as soon as the judgments in his favour became
enforceable, it was incumbent on the State to comply with them.
The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues
similar to the ones in the present case (see Reynbakh v.
Russia, no. 23405/03, § 23 et seq., 29 September
2005; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq.,
13 January 2005; 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;
Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, § 35 et seq.,
18 November 2004; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §
34 et seq., ECHR 2002 III).
Having
examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes that the
Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
Having regard to its case-law on the subject and the circumstances of
the case, the Court finds that by failing for months to comply with
the enforceable judgment in the applicant’s favour the domestic
authorities violated his right to a court and prevented him from
receiving the money he could reasonably have expected to receive.
There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
Lastly,
the applicant complained about the excessively lenient sentence for
the perpetrator of the road accident.
The
Court observes that the perpetrator was convicted by the judgment of
13 October 1998, whereas the present application was lodged on 6
August 2001. It follows that this complaint has been introduced out
of time. In any event, it is not the Court’s
function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a
national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights
and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, e.g.,
Čekić and Others v. Croatia
(dec.), no. 15085/02, 9 October 2003). Having regard to the
facts, as submitted, the Court has not found any reason to believe
that the proceedings did not comply with the fairness requirement of
Article 6 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the
application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in
accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the
Convention.
IV. 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 1,000,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage he had incurred while taking care of his injured
wife.
The
Government submitted that the claims were not substantiated by
documents.
The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violations found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this part of
the claim. On the other hand, it considers that the applicant
suffered distress and frustration resulting from the excessive length
of the proceedings and the delay in enforcement of the judgment of 3
June 2004. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court
awards the applicant EUR 3,500 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 claims for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and the Court.
Accordingly,
the Court does not award anything 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 complaints concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings concerning the road accident and the delay
in enforcement of the judgment of 3 June 2004 admissible and the
remainder of the application inadmissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of
the proceedings concerning the road accident;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on
account of the delay in enforcement of the judgment of 3 June 2004;
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 3,500
(three 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 on
that amount;
(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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 March 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Santiago Quesada Josep
Casadevall
Registrar President
