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 IGNATYEVA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 10277/05)
JUDGMENT
(Just
satisfaction)
STRASBOURG
22
December 2009
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 Ignatyeva v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nina Vajić,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik
Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou,
judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 3 December 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The case originated in an application (no. 10277/05)
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, Ms
Vera Pavlovna Ignatyeva (“the applicant”), on 22 June
2003.
- In
a judgment delivered on 3 April 2008 (“the principal
judgment”), the Court held that there had been a violation of
Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on
account of the quashing of the final judgments of 3 May and 14 May
2001 by way of supervisory review (Ignatyeva v. Russia, no.
10277/05).
- Under Article 41 of the Convention the applicant sought
just satisfaction of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages sustained as
a result of the above violations and reimbursement of costs and
expenses.
- Since
the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was
not ready to be decided upon, the Court reserved judgment and invited
the Government and the applicant to submit, within three months,
their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to
notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (ibid., § 60,
and point 3 of the operative provisions). The Court also appointed an
expert to carry out an evaluation in respect of the pecuniary losses
sustained by the applicant. On 15 April 2009 the expert submitted his
report in this connection.
- The
applicant and the Government each filed observations on 10 June and 2
July 2008 respectively.
THE LAW
- 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 86,843 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage,
arguing that this represented the sum which she could have recovered
from the disputed plot of land by harvesting it in the period from
April 1996 to the present moment had her title to it not been
contested. She further claimed EUR 12,000 in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government argued that there was no causal link between the violation
found and the alleged pecuniary damage. As regards the applicant's
claims in respect of the non-pecuniary damage, the Government
contended that they were unreasonable and excessive.
- After
having consulted the parties, the Court appointed the expert in order
to access the pecuniary losses sustained by the applicant (see
paragraph 4 above).
- The
expert submitted that the value of the plot of land in question was
equal to 8,348 Russian roubles (RUB) in February 2003 when the
judgments in the applicant's favour had been quashed in
supervisory-review procedure. He further submitted that the current
value of the plot of land amounted to RUB 154,438.
- The
Court reiterates that the most appropriate form of redress in respect
of the violations found would be to put the applicant as far as
possible in the position she would have been had the Convention
requirements not been disregarded (see Piersack v. Belgium
(Article 50), 26 October 1984, § 12, Series A no. 85, and,
mutatis mutandis, Gençel v. Turkey, no.
53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003). The Court considers that this
principle should apply in the present case (see Dovguchits v.
Russia, no. 2999/03, § 48, 7 June 2007, and Kulkov
and Others v. Russia, nos. 25114/03, 11512/03, 9794/05,
37403/05, 13110/06, 19469/06, 42608/06, 44928/06, 44972/06 and
45022/06, § 62, 8 January 2009).
- The
applicant was prevented from enjoying the plot of land, the title to
which had been registered in her name following the binding and
enforceable judgments delivered by domestic courts. Accordingly the
Court awards the applicant the current cost of the disputed plot of
land, as determined by the expert, to be converted in euros, plus any
tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
- The
Court furthermore finds that the applicant has suffered non-pecuniary
damage resulting from the quashing of the judgments in her favour by
way of supervisory review, which cannot be compensated by the mere
finding of a violation. Having regard to the circumstances of the
case and making its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by
Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the 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
- The
applicant requested reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in
the domestic proceedings in the amount of EUR 609.
- The
Government contended that no compensation of costs and expenses
should be awarded to the applicant since she had failed to
substantiate her claim with any receipts or vouchers on the basis of
which the amount claimed could be established.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
rejects the applicant's claim because there is no causal link between
the violation found and the claimed expenses.
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
- 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,
converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement:
(i) EUR
3,500 (three thousand five hundred euros) in respect of pecuniary
damage;
(ii) EUR
3,000 (three thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) any
tax that may be chargeable to the applicant 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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 December 2009,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Nina Vajić
Registrar President
