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]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF ZVEZDIN v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 25448/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 June 2007
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 Zvezdin v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D.
Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens,
Mr G. Malinverni,
judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 24 May 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 25448/06) 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 Viktor Petrovich Zvezdin
(“the applicant”), on 25 May 2006.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
- The
applicant complained about the continued non-enforcement of the
judgment in his favour and its subsequent quashing by way of
supervisory review.
- On
4 September 2006 the Court decided to give notice of the application
to the Government. 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 FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Novocherkassk, a town in the
Rostov Region. He is a retired military officer.
- In
August 2004 the applicant brought proceedings against the Military
Service Commission of Novocherkassk (Военный
комиссариат
г. Новочеркасска
– “the Commission”) seeking to recover his pension
arrears from January 1995 to March 1998 to take account of the
increase of the minimum monthly wage.
- On 15 September 2004 the Novocherkassk Town Court of
the Rostov Region granted the applicant's claim and awarded him
252,510.91 roubles (RUR) in arrears. The court held that the judgment
should be enforced immediately. The Commission missed the statutory
time-limit for lodging an ordinary appeal against the judgment, and
it became final on 25 September 2004.
- The
Novocherkassk Town Court of the Rostov Region issued the applicant
with a warrant of execution which the applicant submitted to the
Commission on 11 October 2004. The Commission, however, did not
comply with the judgment of 15 September 2004 and instead filed an
application for review of the judgment due to what it considered to
be newly discovered circumstances.
- On
10 February 2005 the Novocherkassk Town Court of the Rostov Region
dismissed the Commission's request.
- In
July 2005 the applicant brought proceedings against the Commission in
the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don seeking to recover
his pension arrears from January 1995 to March 1998 relating to a
long-service bonus and inflation.
- On
18 July 2005 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don granted
the applicant's claim and obliged the Commission to recalculate the
applicant's pension from January 1995 to March 1998 in view of the
25% increase of the salary and the variation of the consumer
price index in the Rostov Region between 1 February 1995 and 31
December 2004.
- On
24 October 2005 the amount of RUR 14,038.44 was paid into the
applicant's bank account following the judgment of 18 July 2005.
- On
19 September 2005 the Commission filed an application for supervisory
review of the judgment of Novocherkassk Town Court of 15 September
2004, referring to the lack of grounds in domestic law for increasing
the applicant's pension, and asked for the stay of enforcement.
- On 5 October 2005 the Rostov Regional Court examined
the above application and decided to obtain the case file. The
enforcement proceedings were suspended. The Rostov Regional Court
remitted the supervisory review application for examination on its
merits by the Presidium.
- On
12 January 2006 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court held a
supervisory review hearing. It concluded that the first-instance
court had erroneously applied the substantive law and that the matter
should have been examined by a district court rather than a town
court. On these grounds it quashed the judgment of 15 September 2004
and remitted the matter to the Oktyabrskiy District Court of
Rostov-on-Don for a fresh examination.
- On
15 February 2006 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don
discontinued the proceedings having considered the dispute at issue
to be the same as the one examined by it on 18 July 2005.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
A. The Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian
Federation
- The
Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation (“the new
Code”) was enacted on 14 November 2002 and replaced the RSFSR
Code of Civil Procedure (“the old Code”) from 1 February
2003. It provides as follows:
Article 209. Entry into force of judicial decisions
“1. A judicial decision becomes legally
binding upon expiry of the time-limit for lodging an appeal against
it if no such appeal had been lodged.”
Article 210. Enforcement of judicial decisions
“A judicial decision is to be enforced after it
becomes legally binding, unless it provides for immediate
enforcement...”
Article 362. Grounds for quashing or altering
judicial decisions by appeal courts
“1. The grounds for quashing or
altering judicial decisions by appeal courts are:
...
(4) a violation or incorrect application of
substantive or procedural law.”
Article 376. Right to apply to a court exercising
supervisory review
“1. Judicial decisions that have become
legally binding, with the exception for judicial decisions by the
Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, may be
appealed against ... to a court exercising supervisory review, by
parties to the case and by other persons whose rights or legal
interests have been adversely affected by these judicial decisions.
2. Judicial decisions may be appealed against
to a court exercising supervisory review within one year after they
became legally binding...”
Article 387. Grounds for quashing or altering
judicial decisions
by way of supervisory review
“Judicial decisions of lower courts may be quashed
or altered by way of supervisory review on the grounds of substantial
violations of substantive or procedural legal provisions.”
Article 390. Competence of the supervisory review
court
“1. Having examined the case by way of
supervisory review, the court may...
(2) quash the judicial decision issued by a
court of first, second or supervisory review instance in whole or in
part and remit the matter for a fresh examination...
(5) quash or alter the judicial decision
issued by a court of first, second or supervisory review instance and
issue a new judicial decision, without remitting the matter for a
fresh examination, if the substantive law has been erroneously
applied or interpreted.”
B. Enforcement Proceedings Act (Law of 21 July 1997)
- Once
instituted, enforcement proceedings must be completed within two
months upon receipt of the execution warrant by the bailiff
(Section 13).
C. The 2004 Federal Budget Act and the 2005 Federal
Budget Act
19. Collection
of funds from the recipients of the federal budget is carried out
through the local branches of the Federal Treasury upon submission of
warrants of execution and court orders (Section 133 and Section 109
respectively).
D. The Federal Law of 12 February 1993 4468-1 on
provision of pensions for the retired military servicemen
- Pensions
to the retired military servicemen are paid by the specialized
territorial services of the Ministry of Defence (Section 56).
E. The Agreement between the Ministry of Finance and
the Savings Bank of the Russian Federation № 01 01-06/03-1710
of 31 December 2002
21. The
local branches of the Savings Bank (the Sberbank) distribute the
funds allocated by the federal budget for payment of pensions to the
retired military servicemen to the specialized territorial services
of the Ministry of Defence (Section 2.2.2).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING
OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE APPLICANT'S FAVOUR
- The
applicant complained that the quashing of the judgment of
15 September 2004 by way of supervisory review proceedings had
violated his “right to a court” under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of
possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of
these provisions read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a
reasonable time ... 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...”
A. Admissibility
- The Court considers 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
1. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
- The
Government submitted that the quashing of the judgment of
15 September 2004 by way of supervisory review fully complied
with Articles 376 § 1, 387 and 390 of the Russian Code of Civil
Procedure. The supervisory review procedure was set in motion with
the view of correcting a “judicial error” committed by
the first-instance court in determining the amount of arrears to be
awarded to the applicant. There had therefore been no violation of
the principle of legal certainty.
- The applicant averred that the quashing of the final
judgment in his case had irremediably impaired the principle of legal
certainty.
- The
Court reiterates that the right to a fair hearing before a tribunal
as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention must be
interpreted in the light of the Preamble to the Convention, which
declares, in its relevant part, the rule of law to be part of the
common heritage of the Contracting States. One of the fundamental
aspects of the rule of law is the principle of legal certainty, which
requires, among other things, that where the courts have finally
determined an issue, their ruling should not be called into question
(see Brumărescu v. Romania, judgment of 28 October 1999,
Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-VII, § 61).
- This principle insists that no party is entitled to
seek re-opening of the proceedings merely for the purpose of a
rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. Higher courts' power to
quash or alter binding and enforceable judicial decisions should be
exercised for correction of fundamental defects. The mere possibility
of two views on the subject is not a ground for re-examination.
Departures from that principle are justified only when made necessary
by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see Kot
v. Russia, no. 20887/03, § 24, 18 January 2007).
28. The
Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the
right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations
brought before a court or tribunal. In this way it embodies the
“right to a court”, of which the right of access, that is
the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters,
constitutes one aspect. However, that right would be illusory if a
Contracting State's domestic legal system allowed a final and
enforceable judicial decision to be quashed by a higher court merely
on the ground of disagreement with the assessment made by lower
courts with the view of carrying out a fresh examination (see
Kot, cited above, §§ 27-30).
- In
the present case the judgment of 15 September 2004 in the applicant's
favour was set aside by the way of a supervisory review on the ground
that the Town Court had incorrectly applied the substantive law and
the rules of territorial jurisdiction. The Court has to assess
whether the power to conduct a supervisory review was exercised by
the authorities so as to strike, to the maximum extent possible, a
fair balance between the interests of the individual and the need to
ensure the proper administration of justice (see, mutatis
mutandis, Nikitin v. Russia, no. 50178/99, §§ 57
and 59, ECHR 2004-VIII).
- The
Court stresses that a binding and enforceable judgment should only be
quashed in exceptional circumstances rather than for the sole purpose
of obtaining a different decision in the case (see the case-law cited
in paragraph 27 above). In the Russian legal system, the grounds for
quashing or altering judgments by appeal courts largely overlap with
those for quashing or altering judgments by way of supervisory review
(compare Article 362 § 1 (4) and Article 387 of the Code of
Civil Procedure). The judgment of 15 September 2004 was quashed by
way of supervisory review because of incorrect application of the
substantive law and the rules of territorial jurisdiction. These
defects could have been cured in the appeal proceedings. Thus, a
situation where the final judgment in the applicant's favour was
called into question could have been avoided, had the Military
Commission lodged an ordinary appeal within the statutory ten-day
time-limit (see Borshchevskiy v. Russia, no. 14853/03, §
48, 21 September 2006, and Nelyubin v. Russia, no. 14502/04, §
27, 2 November 2006).
- The
Court further notes that the Russian Code of Civil Procedure permits
a party to apply for supervisory review even if it had not previously
exhausted an ordinary appeal. In the present case the Military
Commission failed to exercise its right to lodge an ordinary appeal
and permitted the statutory ten-day time-limit to expire without
challenging the judgment of 15 September 2004. Instead, it first
attempted to have the judgment reviewed due to allegedly newly
discovered circumstances, and later, when those attempts proved
futile, applied for supervisory review just a few days before the
expiration of the statutory time-limit for lodging such an
application. The Government did not point to any exceptional
circumstances that would have prevented the Military Commission from
exposing its arguments to the Town Court or making use of an ordinary
appeal in good time (see Nelyubin, cited above, § 28).
- Having
regard to these considerations, the Court finds that, by granting the
Military Commission's request to set aside the judgment of
15 September 2004, the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court
infringed the principle of legal certainty and the applicant's “right
to a court” under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. There
has accordingly been a violation of that Article.
2. Alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.
1
- The
Court reiterates that the existence of a debt confirmed by a binding
and enforceable judgment furnishes the judgment beneficiary with a
“legitimate expectation” that the debt would be paid and
constitutes the beneficiary's “possessions” within the
meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Quashing of such a
judgment amounts to an interference with his or her right to peaceful
enjoyment of possessions (see, among other authorities, Brumărescu,
cited above, § 74; Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00,
§ 69, 6 October 2005; and Borshchevskiy v. Russia, cited
above, § 51).
- The
Government submitted that, in view of the fact that on 18 July 2005
the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don had examined the
claims identical to those dealt with by the Novocherkassk Town Court
of the Rostov Region on 15 September 2004 and found for the
applicant, as well as the fact that on 24 October 2005 the former
judgment had been enforced, the quashing of the judgment of 15
September 2004 and subsequent discontinuation of these proceedings
did not amount to an interference with the applicant's property
rights.
- The
Court is not convinced that the applicant's claims as examined by the
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don on 18 July 2005 were
indeed the same as those examined by the Novocherkassk Town Court of
the Rostov Region on 15 September 2004. However, assuming that it is
so, the Court observes that the quashing of the judgment of 15
September 2004 by way of supervisory review led to a situation where
the amount awarded to the applicant went from RUR 252,510.91 to RUR
14,038.44. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the
quashing of the enforceable judgment of 15 September 2004 by way of
supervisory review frustrated the applicant's reliance on a binding
judicial decision and deprived him of an opportunity to receive the
money he had legitimately expected to receive. Furthermore, the
quashing of the judgment of 15 September 2004 by way of supervisory
review placed an excessive burden on the applicant and was therefore
incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. There has therefore
been a violation of that Article.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF LENGTHY
NON-ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDICIAL DECISION
- The
applicant further complained about the non-enforcement of the
judgment of 15 September 2004. He relied on Article 6 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, cited above.
A. Admissibility
- The Court notes that the 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 submitted that contrary to the requirements of the
domestic law (Section 133 of the 2004 Federal Budget Act and Section
109 of the 2005 Federal Budget Act) the applicant submitted the
warrant of execution directly to the debtor, whereas he was supposed
to submit it with the competent department of the Federal Treasury.
Therefore, the applicant was responsible for the non-enforcement of
the judgment up until 5 October 2005 when the enforcement proceedings
were stayed pending the outcome of the supervisory review
proceedings.
- The
applicant responded that he had submitted the warrant of execution to
the Commission in accordance with Section 56 of the Federal Law of 12
February 1993 4468-1 on provision of pensions for the retired
military servicemen and Section 2.2.2 of the Agreement between the
Ministry of Finance and the Savings Bank of the Russian Federation
№ 01 01-06/03-1710 of 31 December 2002, in force at
the material time. In support of his argument the applicant submitted
the replies of the local branch of the Federal Treasury to other
retired servicemen who initially submitted the warrants of execution
with the Treasury. In those replies the abovementioned persons were
referred directly to the Military Service Commission responsible for
assignment and payment of pension benefits to the retired military
servicemen.
- Furthermore,
the Government advanced the argument that as the judgment of 15
September 2004 had been passed in breach of the substantive domestic
law, on which ground it had been quashed by way of supervisory
review, the delay in its enforcement was justified.
- The
applicant asserted on this point that the judgment of 15 September
2004 provided for its immediate enforcement, and, therefore, the
Government's argument was unconvincing.
- Turning
to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that on 15
September 2004 the applicant obtained a judgment by which the
Military Service Commission was to pay him a certain sum of money.
The judgment provided for its immediate enforcement. From that moment
on, it was incumbent on the debtor, a State agency, to comply with
it. On 25 September 2004 the judgment became legally binding
since no appeal was lodged against it. The Town Court issued the
applicant with a warrant of execution, and it was submitted to the
debtor on 11 October 2004. However, no attempts were made to execute
the judgment. The Rostov Regional Court's decision of 5 October 2005
had the effect of staying the enforcement proceedings but did not
affect the validity of the underlying judgment which remained
unenforced on that date (see paragraph 14 above). The launching of
the supervisory review procedure could not, in itself, extinguish the
debtor's obligation to comply with an enforceable judgment which
obligation existed until its quashing by the Presidium of the Rostov
Regional Court in supervisory review procedure on 12 January
2006.
- It
follows that at least between 15 September 2004 and 12 January 2006
the judgment in the applicant's favour was “enforceable”
and it was incumbent on the State agency to abide by its terms. In
any event, the Court reiterates that the quashing of a judgment in a
manner which has been found to have been incompatible with the
principle of legal certainty and the applicant's “right to a
court” cannot be accepted as a justification for the failure to
enforce that judgment (see Sukhobokov v. Russia,
no. 75470/01, § 26, 13 April 2006).
- As to the Government's argument concerning the failure
of the applicant to comply with the requirements of the domestic law
when submitting the warrant of execution, the Court recalls 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 Metaxas
v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May 2004; Gorokhov and
Rusyayev, no. 38305/02, § 33, 17 March 2005; Koltsov
v. Russia, no. 41304/02, § 16, 24 February 2005; and
Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 18, 24 February
2005).
- 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, for example, Burdov
v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III; and, more recently,
Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, 24 February 2005,
Wasserman v. Russia (no. 1), no. 15021/02, 18 November
2004, and Sukhobokov, cited above).
- Having examined the material submitted to it, the
Court notes that the Government did not put forward any fact or
argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in
the present case. They did not advance any plausible justification
for the delay in enforcement. Having regard to its case-law on the
subject, the Court finds that by failing to comply with the judgment
in the applicant's favour the domestic authorities violated his
“right to a court” and prevented him from receiving the
money which he was entitled to receive.
- The Court finds accordingly that there was a violation
of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 as regards non-enforcement of the judgment in the
applicant's favour.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Lastly, the applicant complained that the
non-enforcement of the judgment of 15 September 2004 and its
subsequent quashing by way of supervisory review violated his rights
enshrined in Article 13 of the Convention.
- In so far as the applicant may be understood to
complain about the lack of an effective domestic remedy against the
continued non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour, the Court
considers that, having regard to the above findings (see paragraph 47
above), it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there
has been a violation of Article 13 (see Tolokonnikova v. Russia,
no. 24651/03, § 27, 17 November 2005, and Gerasimenko v.
Russia, no. 24657/03, § 29, 17 November 2005).
- Thus,
the Court rejects this complaint under Article 35 § 4 of the
Convention.
- In so far as the applicant may be understood to
complain about the lack of an effective domestic remedy against the
quashing by way of supervisory review of a judgment in his favour,
the Court notes that Article 13 of the Convention does not, as
such, guarantee the right to appellate remedies in respect of a
decision taken by way of supervisory review, and the mere fact that
the judgment of the highest judicial body is not subject to further
judicial review does not infringe in itself the said provision (see
Tregubenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 61333/00, 21 October 2003,
and Sitkov v. Russia (dec.), no. 55531/00, 9 November 2004).
52. It
follows that this part of the applicant's complaint under Article 13
of the Convention is incompatible ratione materiae with the
provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 §
3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4
thereof.
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 that the Government should pay him 252,510.91
Russian roubles (RUR) lost as a result of the non-enforcement of the
judgment of 15 September 2004 and its subsequent quashing by way of
supervisory review. He also claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government did not comment on the applicant's claims for pecuniary
damage. As regards the non-pecuniary damage, the Government
considered that the applicant's claim was excessive and unreasonable.
- The
Court recalls that in the instant case it found a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1, in that the judgment in the applicant's favour remained
unenforced for a long period of time and was subsequently quashed.
The applicant was thereby prevented from receiving the money he had
legitimately expected to receive. There is, therefore, a causal link
between the violations found and the applicant's claim for the
pecuniary damage. At the same time the Court bears in mind the fact
that the domestic court considered the applicant's claims as examined
by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don on 18 July 2005 to
be the same as those examined by the Novocherkassk Town Court of the
Rostov Region on 15 September 2004. It further recalls that following
the judgment of 18 July 2005 the applicant received RUR 14,038.44.
Therefore, the Court considers it appropriate to award the applicant
RUR 238,472.47, which represents the difference between the sum
claimed and the sum received by the applicant under the judgment of
18 July 2005.
- The
Court further considers that the applicant suffered distress because
of the State authorities' failure to enforce the judgment in his
favour and its subsequent decision to quash it. The Court takes into
account the amount and nature of the award in the instant case and
the period of the authorities' inactivity. Making its assessment on
an equitable basis, it awards the applicant the amount of EUR 4,300,
plus any tax that may be chargeable on it.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not claim costs or expenses and there is accordingly no
call to make an 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 complaints concerning the continued
non-enforcement of the judgment of 15 September 2004 in the
applicant's favour and its subsequent quashing by way of supervisory
review admissible and the remaining complaints inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the
quashing of the judgment of 15 September 2004 by way of supervisory
review;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the
non-enforcement of the judgment of 15 September 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, the following amounts:
(i) RUR
238,472.47 (two hundred thirty-eight thousand four hundred and
seventy-two Russian roubles forty-seven kopecks) in respect of
pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
4,300 (four thousand three hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable
at the date of settlement;
(iii) any
tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(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 14 June 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
